Under Arrest

Under Arrest

Name

Institution

Date

Under Arrest

When an individual is taken into custody by the police and loses his basic right of moving or leaving freely, the police officer can keep an individual under arrest with or without the use of force which will be determined by the voluntary or involuntary submission of the suspect. The use of restraints or handcuffs in the voluntary submission of an individual under arrest is not necessary. A person can be placed under arrest lawfully or unlawfully, there are conditions and measures set to determine if an arrest was lawful or unlawful. Individuals placed under arrest unlawfully can challenge in line with the criminal process that requires officers to be mindful of the constitutional rights of citizens while placing them under arrest. An individual can be placed under arrest with the arresting officers reading out to him the rights they have which include the right to remain silent until a lawyer is provided and the right, they have to be free from searches that are unreasonable. According to the Miranda warning, it is important for law enforcer to read these rights to a suspect before arrest because at times the suspects statement may be disregarded if they were not read for their rights (Rogers, 2007). An individual will be placed under arrest if an arresting officer observes a crime taking place personally, has probable cause to arrest as well as have an issued warrant.

A stop and arrest by police officers are quite different although it is hard and crucial to figure the distinction. A stop is a mere detention that upon suspicion a police officer can retain an individual to ask him/her a few questions. An arrest, however, is a definite involvement of a police officer through a sort of significant restrain of movement taking a person into custody. An example of a stop is pulling over of motorist for violation of traffic rules or equipment. In most instances, a stop by law enforcement officers indicates that one cannot leave freely either they under arrest, at least until the officer develops a probable course. An arrest of an individual is followed by the use of restrains as well as advising the suspect that they are under arrest. A stop is essentially made to be brief and cursory thus cannot be longer than necessary and the officer ought to investigate with intrusive means that are reasonably available. A prolonged stop can be regarded as a de facto arrest, that in most circumstances without probable cause is illegal.

Police officers are mandated to ensure that there are law and order. One way police officers get to do this is through police stop and searches. There have always been controversies as to what extent the police can stop and search people. This controversy has often been linked to police racial discrimination as often people of color are stopped and searched. Although this may be true, at times the issue is so much politicized as police stop and search is an act enshrined in the law as a way of maintaining law and order (Chemerinsky, 2009). In situations of unwitnessed misdemeanors, the state can authorize probable cause arrests if there is a possibility of involvement of people in the misdemeanors. This is on pure suspicion or may be based on the complaint of an individual that could indicate people being on the crime scene or that they had left certain evidence on the scene that traces back to them.

Upon executing an arrest enforcing officers commonly the police officers are allowed to use reasonable force. They are however guided by the constitution to execute a certain type of force for certain different levels of crimes in the states. The police are justified to use a little extreme force if a suspect pushes the officers and tries to run. They are however required to not use any force if the suspect is cooperating with them. The levels of crime would include terrorism that would require the police to use extreme force to apprehend their suspect if necessary, tie then or use of teasers for unlawful suspects that often fight back. The kind of force the police officers use could be determined by the response they receive from the suspect that they intend to apprehend.

Police officers will often meet with members of the public chat with them and advise them; this is one of the ways of effective community policing is conducted. There is a difference between an informal chat whereby the law enforcement officer tries to seek about a person’s whereabouts, their intentions or where a law enforcement officer suspects that the person is about to be involved in an unlawful activity (Bowling, pg. 2007). A generic name for these is the stop and search even if the physical search does not take place when we talk of police searches we often think that a police officer will stop you and tap you down or ask you to open the boot of the car. Although this is true, stop and search goes above that as it also involves a person being asked of their whereabouts or inquiring about someone intentions when they appear as if they are about to commit a crime. It is important or a police officer to conduct all these without appearing to be discriminative or being considered that they are targeting a certain race.

The primary role of the stop and identify is to enable officers to put rest the suspicion they have that someone is almost committing a crime or is carrying an illegal weapon or substance. Just as human beings police to have an instinct or gut that can tell them when someone is acting suspiciously. These are also part of the knowledge that is acquired in the police academy to spot out a person who may be acting suspiciously or may be carrying a weapon. When they feel someone is acting suspiciously or is important for police to stop one and conduct a search or enquire of their intentions. They may also ask for an identification to establish who someone is. This is important in ensuring there are law and order. This task has been made harder when searches are classified as unlawful and unnecessary.

Police have been given power by the law to stop and search people in public, but these individual needs to have given reasonable ground. According to section 1 of police and criminal evidence act, it provides police officers with the powers to stop and search persons or vehicles if he reasonably suspects that he may find illegal weapons, drugs or stolen goods. The United States Supreme Court in the Terry v. Ohio case made an important rule on the stop and frisk in 1968, and that is why at times these stops are referred to as Terry Stops. Before these ruling police officers were only allowed to search people who were arrested, other people could be searched if a police warrant was obtained. The Terry v. Ohio, Sibron v. New York, and Peter’s v. New York granted limited approval to police officers to conduct searches even when they had no probable cause. Suspicion of danger to a law enforcer was now considered a probable cause (Gelman, 2007).

Recently in social media, I reviewed a video showing officers who without probable cause had stopped a black individual who was collecting litter outside their apartment. The officer stopped the individual asking him what he was doing, the young man did explain himself on why he was collecting litter in that neighborhood, upon raising his trash picker the police officer teased him using the teaser gun calling for back up that saw over 12 policer officers responding with guns aimed at the young man. The call for backup was absolutely unnecessary so was the use of the teaser this is as the young man had walked to the house and unlocked himself in confirming he stayed at the apartment. This act confirmed the perception of police discrimination against black folks in the states. Although we tend to believe that all policemen are similar I have as well encountered police officers who stick out to help people in the neighborhood creating a friendlier and safer environment

References

Bowling, Ben, and Coretta Phillips. (2007). “Disproportionate and discriminatory: reviewing the evidence on police stop and search.” The Modern Law Review 70.6: 936-961.

Chemerinsky, Erwin, and Karen M. Blum. (2009). “Fourth Amendment Stops, Arrests and Searches in the Context of Qualified Immunity.” Tour L. REv. 25: 781.

Gelman, Andrew, Jeffrey Fagan, and Alex Kiss. (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.

Rogers, Richard, et al. (2007). “An analysis of Miranda warnings and waivers: Comprehension and coverage.” Law and human behavior 31.2: 177-192.