Modern Law Enforcement: A Century of Change - Essay Sample

Introduction

Law enforcement has experienced significant changes over the years. Specifically, within the past century, the profession has recorded a drastic transition. Over this period, technology has changed, while the Bill of Rights has been updated, and other Laws are written to help make law enforcement a proper profession. Increasingly, law enforcement officials are held to much higher standards, not just in the way that they undertake their responsibilities, but also in how their adherence to professionalism and ethical conduct in the discharge of the responsibilities. The leadership of law enforcement agencies is required to oversee the discharge of professional duties, failure to which the commanders may be held liable. This paper addresses the changes in recruitment requirements for law enforcement officers, how federal law inhibits the rights of officers, constraints placed on law enforcement officers, and instances when supervisors become criminally liable for the misconduct of law enforcement officers.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Change in Requirements That Police Hiring Agencies Have Had for Potential Candidates Over the Last 50 Years and The Effects on Law Enforcement Organizations

The changes in requirements that police hiring agencies have had for potential candidates over the last 50 years have been geared towards building a professional force. Changes in police recruitment have leaned towards attracting individuals that represent the population they seek to serve. Hence, within this period, there have been efforts to attract minorities and females into law enforcement. As part of serving their communities better, law enforcers are required to have effective communication skills and be able to interact appropriately with diverse populations. Policing in the 1960s was male white-dominated (Satter, 1). However, with the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and later the Equal Opportunities Act of 1972, police hiring agencies began to consider more female law enforcers, and individuals from minority communities to serve their communities (Schrader, 2).

Advances in technology have also helped to redefine how hiring agencies communicate with prospective law enforcement candidates. Unlike in the past, when such information was limited to the general public, hiring agencies can today employ different mediums to communicate their vacancies and requirements openly and transparently. This way, they can attract a wider pool of candidates from which to select. The Police Corps was established in 1998 to help attract college students that are interested in working in police departments once they are through with college studies (Schrader, 2).

Over the years, law enforcement hiring agencies have emphasized academics when selecting prospective candidates. Whereas a high school diploma would be enough for one to join law enforcement before 1986, changes have seen this requirement adjusted upwards (Schrader, 2). After 1986, for instance, prospective law enforcement officers were required to hold at least a bachelor's degree. For candidates with a background in law, and associate's degree was required. Further changes in 1994 required that all prospective law enforcement officers had to be holders of a bachelor's degree irrespective of their experience level (Schrader, 2).

Changes in recruitment requirements have had positive effects on law enforcement organizations. Whereas there still exist a few errant law enforcement officers, the professional conduct of these organizations has improved significantly (Schrader, 2). Also, while the imbalance in the racial composition of law enforcement agencies was a cause of conflict, such conflicts have reduced significantly as the law enforcement agencies reflect the ethnic and racial compositions of the populations served.

Two Areas in Which Federal Courts Have Placed Limits on Officer's Constitutional Rights Due to The Nature of Their Work

One area where the federal courts have placed limits on the constitutional rights of officers due to the nature of their work has been allowing the public recording of law enforcement officers while discharging their duties. The District Judge Patti Sarris, ruling on Martin v Gross, declared that Section 99 was unconstitutional in its prohibition of the secret recording of law enforcement officers whenever their discharge of responsibilities occurred within public spaces (Wasserman, 4). As technology has expanded, more and more instances of police misconduct have been highlighted through video posts on social media. The reasoning behind allowing such scrutiny is for law enforcement officers to adhere to ethical conduct and professionalism when undertaking their duties.

Another area where federal courts limit the constitutional rights of officers is in its requirement for them to follow due process of the law. One case that exemplifies this limitation involved the killing of Keith Lamont Scott by the Charlotte Police officers (Marcus, 3). Demonstrators and political voices demanded that videos of the incident be released without first getting the defense of the police officers. The law, therefore, appears to selectively apply when dealing with law enforcement officers as compared to what is needed for civilians as regards the Due Process Clause (Marcus, 3).

Three Constraints Placed on Law Enforcement and How They Affect How Law Enforcement Conducts Their Operations

There exist legal restraints that are placed on law enforcement by the constitution as the constitution focuses on protecting the rights of citizens while limiting the power of government (Gill, 5). The democratic principles advanced by the constitution places legal restraints on how the police undertake their responsibilities. The Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and

One of the restraints on law enforcement is that they must have a probable cause to search or arrest. This constraint is derived from the Fourth Amendment, which is a part of the Bill of Rights. What this constraint means is that law enforcement cannot search or seize property or individuals without any probable cause (Gill, 5). Law enforcement officers are required to have a reasonable belief that the person to be arrested committed a crime. Therefore, in certain circumstances, the police are required to obtain a warrant before they can arrest or search an individual or property. The Case of Joelis Jardines and the Miami-Dade police department demonstrates how this constraint affects the operational conduct of the police (Gill, 5). When the department responded to an allegation that his properties had marijuana and proceeded to use a dog for their search, Jardines noted that they had no warrant to search his property.

The second constraint is the Miranda warnings (Gill, 5). Law enforcement officers are required to inform suspects of their Fifth Amendment Rights. On the other hand, the suspect may choose to waive their rights or voluntarily waive their rights with full knowledge of the potential consequences. While this requirement protects the rights of the suspect, it constrains the police in the undertaking of their responsibilities (Gill, 5). For instance, the police may ask a suspect to confirm their name just to be sure that they are arresting the right person. However, the suspect may choose to remain silent, which would be proper as per the Fifth Amendment.

The third constraint on law enforcement that affects how they discharge their duties is the exclusionary rule (Gill, 5). This rule protects suspects from unlawful arrests, even when such arrests help to build up their case. However, the law provides that unlawful arrest can lead to a case being thrown away, however, its merits. Hence, the focus on the process of handling the suspect as opposed to the merits of the case limits the way that law enforcement can consolidate cases while ensuring that suspects do not flee or interfere with evidence.

Two Current Events in Which Police Supervisors Were Held Criminally Liable for Their Officers' Misconduct

In Indiana, police officers were punished for misconduct, while their supervisor was punished for turning a blind eye to their misconduct and promoting them (Lum and Nagin, 6). Police supervisors may be personally held liable for liability in the event of supervisory failure. For instance, if an officer were to stop a suspect during a search and violate their rights through illegal seizure, and the supervisor does nothing upon getting the information, if the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, the commander may be held responsible for not correcting their subordinate. Law enforcement supervisors must undertake a regular review of the complaint filed against law officers under their jurisdictions. If an officer errs in how they handle the procedures leading to the arrest or seizure of property or suspect, the supervisor must initiate supervisory processes, which should determine a cause of action for the errant officer. If this does not occur, the supervisor bears the responsibility of the officer's misconduct.

In Camden, New Jersey, two officers, and their supervisor faced disciplinary processes when the officers acted unprofessionally while performing their duties (Lum and Nagin, 6). However, it was noted that the department had failed to give proper training to the officers. Failing to train officers is often the reason for the use of undue force. When this occurs, the supervisor has failed in their capacity to train, guide, and offer professional leadership as needed.

Sources

Satter, B., 2016, Cops, gangs, and revolutionaries in 1960s Chicago: What black police can tell us about power. Journal of Urban History, 42(6), pp.1110-1134. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.987.546&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Schrader, S., 2017, More than cosmetic changes: the challenges of experiments with police demilitarization in the 1960s and 1970s. Journal of Urban History, p.0096144217705523. doi: 10.1177/0096144217705523

Marcus, N.C., 2016, From Edward to Eric Garner and beyond: The importance of constitutional limitations on lethal use of force in police reform. Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol'y, 12, p.53. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=djclpp

Wasserman, H.M., 2017, Police misconduct, video recording, and procedural barriers to rights enforcement. NCL Rev., 96, p.1313. https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6680&context=nclr

Gill, P., 2018, Rounding up the usual suspects? developments in contemporary law enforcement intelligence: developments in contemporary law enforcement intelligence. Routledge.

Lum, C. and Nagin, D.S., 2017, Reinventing American policing. Crime and justice, 46(1), pp.339-393. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6536/aba69f428bdf99cbc8ac8472ae5feecd36f9.pdf