Once a suspect or criminal is taken into custody
The criminal justice procedure begins. When making arrests, the police have a duty to follow the correct protocols. However, some instances of a police officer abusing their authority have been documented, which has an impact on how the general public views law enforcement. The legal requirements for placing a suspect or criminal under arrest are the main subject of this research.
When an individual is taken into police custody
By a police officer and is unable to leave, an arrest is made. (Gelman et al. 2007). At this point, the use of force or handcuffs to restrain the person is not necessary. In most cases, this starts once the police officer declares the person to be under arrest. The suspect is expected to submit to the police officer without the officer having to impose physical force. Once a person is declared to be under arrest, the police have the authority over the actions of such a person, whether they choose to voluntarily or involuntarily submit.
The police usually declare a crime suspect under arrest under the following circumstances
If the police have personally witnessed a crime scene; When there is a probable cause to arrest through a reasonable belief that the person is about to commit a crime or has already committed the crime and after the issuance of an arrest warrant by a judge or a magistrate.
Differences between a Stop and an Arrest
A stop is an interaction between a person and police officer which occurs when the law enforcer has reasonable suspicion of the involvement of the person in a crime. A stop is different from an arrest, although the person is not free to leave until the police officer allows him or her to. The intention of a stop is to have a conversation that will enable the police officer to obtain more information. The stopped person is free to terminate the conversation during a stop and walk away. Being stopped does not mean you are under arrest, (Whitebread & Slobogin 2000). An arrest, on the other hand, takes place when an officer has an arrest warrant or a probable cause. A Probable cause is an indication that a person has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime. The person is not free to end the conversation and walks away. In an attempt to take off, the officer has the authority to impose physical power to the allowed limit. During an arrest, the suspect has the right to remain silent and to be treated properly.
Why Might States Authorize Probable Cause Arrests for Certain Unwitnessed Misdemeanors
It is illegal for officers to arrest a person for a misdemeanor without a warrant unless it is committed in their presence. This means that the misdemeanor must take place in the presence of the police officers, for them to arrest the suspect without a warrant. For officers to arrest such misdemeanors, they must prove the probable cause in a court before they arrest the suspect. The interpretation of "in the presence" differs between states. However, some general guidelines are common among the states; for instance, officers are allowed to use all their senses to witness the occurrence of a crime. If an officer smells marijuana on a person, he or she can be arrested. Officers are also allowed to rely on scientific tests and instruments to help him or her witness a crime, for instance, the use of electric amplification or radars. Officers are also allowed to use reasonable inference to deduce probable cause during a crime. For instance, if a traffic police did not witness an accident, but on arriving at the scene he or she observes a person taking off the seat belt at the driver’s seat, he or she can infer that the person was the driver and arrest him or her, (Pettit 2016). However, if an officer did not witness a crime, he or she cannot place a person under arrest based on the information that they receive from other people. For instance, if a security guard witnessed a robbery and gave the information to a police officer, the police officer cannot arrest the suspect based on that information only. It is worth noting that some state allows citizens to make his or her arrest. Such cases are exceptions of the "in presence" requirement. Officers can also base their arrest on another officer's information without a warrant, for instance, if an officer witnesses a crime and share the information with another officer, the second officer can make an arrest based on the description of the other officer. An arrest can also be based on a person’s admission. Even if the officer would not have learned about the misdemeanor, he or she can arrest a person based on their admission, (Whitebread & Slobogin 2000).
There are times that the officer failed to witness the crime but based on the information
That they gather from other people should be allowed to arrest the suspect. Some officers have lost significant suspects at a crime scene because they cannot arrest without a warrant if they have not witnessed the occurrence of the crime. Some states might authorize the arrest of unwitnessed misdemeanors in future since the harm of losing a criminal are higher than having arrested a suspect who turns out to be innocent.
The Amount of Force that Can Be Used by an Officer When Executing an Arrest
Officers are under a universal law that prohibits them from using excessive force when executing an arrest. They are only allowed to use the minimum required force in protecting themselves and ensuring that they bring the person under police custody. People are always advised not to resist an arrest since the amount of force that an officer imposes is directly proportional to the resistance that the suspect display. In cases where the arrestee feels that the arrest is unjustified, he or she is advised to challenge it later through the help of an attorney; (Gelman et al. 2007).In an instance where a person resists an arrest by attempting to run away, the police officer should not impose excess force on that person. In such an example, it would be better to run after the person. The use of extreme forces subjects officer to severe repercussions which can include criminal prosecution. Courts determine the amount of force that officers should impose during an arrest. These decisions vary from case to case depending on the severity of the crime, whether the suspect threatened the life of the officers and whether the suspect was attempting to flee. The police officers, therefore, use their discretion in coming up with the decision of the amount of force that they should impose. They are trained to protect themselves as well as the public in such instances.
Considering the Times that the Researcher Heard About "Excessive Use of Force" and How Such Actions of a Few Officers Influence the Perception of Many Regarding the Police
The use of excess power during arrests makes the public lose confidence in police officers. An example is when the officers ran after a suspect who attempted to flee, and on catching up, the suspect struggled and managed to strike one of the officers. One of the officers was forced to apply a chokehold as the other one placed handcuffs on the suspect. However, after handcuffing the suspect, the officer went on to apply the chokehold for another minute, and the suspect passed out. This was excessive use of force. In such cases, the public raises their complaints which have been the leading cause of distrust of police officers. This makes the public question any force imposed on suspects, even when it is not in excess. There is therefore a need for police officers to back away from contentious acts during arrests, (Lerman & Weaver 2014).
Conclusion
Police officers are trained to protect the general public against any threats. Their actions should, therefore, be of the best of the public needs, especially during arrests. This determines the level of trust that the public has on the law enforcement agents.
References
Gelman, A., Fagan, J., & Kiss, A. (2007). An analysis of the New York City police department's
“stop-and-frisk” policy in the context of claims of racial bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102(479), 813-823.
Lerman, A. E., & Weaver, V. M. (2014). Arresting citizenship: The democratic consequences of
American crime control. University of Chicago Press.
Pettit, B. (2016). Arresting Citizenship: The Democratic Consequences of American Crime
Control. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 45(5), 630-631.
Whitebread, C. H., & Slobogin, C. (2000). Criminal procedure: an analysis of cases and
concepts (p. 101). Eagan, MN: Foundation Press.
