Research Paper on Secure Crowd Control for Convention: Ensuring Public Safety While Protecting Rights

Introduction

A lot of planning and risk management goes into preparing for a convention. The security subcommittee needs to conduct risk assessment and management to ensure that the citizens enjoy their first amendment rights while ensuring public safety (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2018). Particularly, they should look into their crowd control methods and the criteria for permitting protest activities carefully to avoid legal issues after the convention. Therefore, it is important for the Security Subcommittee not to purchase or use the LRADs, permit the Amnesty International protest and deny permission for the Bayside Shopping Mall protest to take place to strike a balance between law compliance and safety.

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

Save 25%

Legal Issues Concerning the Use of LRADs

Possible Legal Claims by an Injured Citizen

A Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) is a sound magnifier that has the potential of damaging the hearing capabilities of a person if it is set at a high setting. It makes people audible enough to be heard but the entire crowd, although it is also claimed to be used to disperse demonstrators. Research has revealed that the use of LRAD can cause serious hearing problems to bystanders or protesters. It has been linked to the disorientation of the balance system of the ear. That can lead to permanent damage to the hearing systems. If the injured person can demonstrate clearly that the use of LRAD caused his or her hearing loss, that will be enough grounds to demonstrate that the use of the device by the law enforcement officer violated his or her Fourth Amendment rights (Braswell, McCarthy, & McCarthy, 2017).

If a person who is participating in a protest experience hearing loss as a result of the exposure to the excessive sound waves of the LRAD, an individual can sue the government for First Amendment rights violations. The use of LRAD to disperse people in demonstrations can amount to a violation of the constitution's Fourteenth Amendment (Braswell et al., 2017). The amendment stipulates that citizens have a right not be seized forcefully or unreasonably. Additionally, the amendment protects participants in a demonstration from mistreatment from the police. The private citizen can claim that his or her rights that are guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment were violated, leading to his or her hearing loss. An individual can back her claims by the fact that the devices were not tested (Cole et al., 2018).

LRAD User and Supervisor's Potential Liability

Law enforcement officers are made accountable for their actions. Individuals using the device can be held responsible for setting the device at its highest setting, exposing the citizens to the potential risk of hearing loss, especially if they were advised not to use the setting. The individuals will be fully or partly liable to the injuries caused to the citizens. Most importantly, Chairperson Salerno will bear the greatest liability for the injuries caused to the citizens because she is the head of the subcommittee and her decisions affect her juniors directly (Braswell et al., 2017). She authorized the use of the devices without proper testing making to bear the liability for the whole team.

Recommendations

It would not be a good idea to use LRADs in this situation. First, it is almost impossible to make sure there is no-one close enough to the devices to avoid being hurt. The devices can potentially harm passersby who are not even participating in the demonstrations. Most importantly, it is recommended not to use the devices to avoid potential lawsuits that arise as a result of people getting injured.

Amnesty International Protest Permit

Legal Claims

Several legal claims will result from the Security Sub-Committee's decision to reject the request of Amnesty International for a permit to hold a peaceful demonstration at a second First Amendment zone. The organization plans to hold a demonstration at the Torch of Friendship, a place where a protest can be held in a controlled environment. First Amendment Zones are designed to allow participants in a protest to demonstrate in a controlled environment. It is a way the authorities use to grant citizens their right to demonstrate while maintaining law and order (Braswell et al., 2017). The First Amendment to the US Constitution allows citizens to protest peacefully. Authorities issues permit for certain protests. The constitution allows the government to formulate requirements for demonstrators to participate in expressive activities within the public property, including sidewalks, streets, as well as parks. Permits are necessary to ensure demonstrators follow all the guidelines that have been outlined in the constitution.

The constitution protects the free expression right. Amnesty International can easily go to court and challenge the decision to be denied permission to protest peacefully (Braswell et al., 2017). Its decision to go to court will be justified because they have shown commitment to perform a demonstration within the provisions of the law.

Recommendations

The recommended action regarding the Amnesty International protest permit would be to grant it to avoid potential lawsuits. However, it should be recognized that the police are allowed to formulate restrictions that guide free expression rights. The authorities have the power to restrict protests conducted in certain areas where the crowd can be controlled easily. Major Warren identified the front side of Torch of Friendship as a designated place where Amnesty International can stage a legal and controlled protest, otherwise referred to as the second First Amendment Zone. The first action that the organization would take after denial of the permit would be to write a complaint to a civilian complaint board or even the internal affairs division of the agency.

Greenpeace Protest Permit

Legal Claims

If Greenpeace is permitted to protest at Bayside, the protest might extend to near American Airlines Arena. The protest might even go beyond the vicinity of the arena to the main road which leads to the Port of Miami (Cole et al., 2018). There is a risk of the protests blocking the entrance to the port making the port to be closed down. Legal issues might arise if the important infrastructure is closed down. The Security Subcommittee might be summoned for issuing the permit. The members of the committee might be charged with economic crimes. Specifically, they will be liable for interruptions caused to the convention and the normal operations of the port. Additionally, legal issues will arise if pat-down searches are conducted on demonstrates at bayside.

Arguments For and Against Pat-Down Searches

If the Greenpeace protest is permitted at the Bayside, law enforcement officers will not be able to perform pat-down searches of bags legally. The law provides that an individual can only be searched if the law enforcement officer reasonably believes that the suspect might be carrying a weapon or something illegal (Cole et al., 2018). If the individual is likely to use the weapon or tool to commit an offense, the police have the power to search him or her. In this case, the police officers may not be in a position to do a pat-down search of backpacks legally because the demonstrators were granted a permit.

On the other hand, pat-down searches will be necessary to contain possible crimes and protect law enforcement officers from being hurt by the demonstrators using weapons or tools that they might have sneaked in. The law provides that the police are supposed to perform a search whenever they have a reasonable belief that the suspects have weapons or tools that can be used to commit an offense (Cole et al., 2018). Additionally, the law allows law enforcement officers to protect themselves through the seizure of tools or weapons that might be used against them. Therefore, it will be legal to perform the search to some extent.

Recommendation

I would recommend for Security Subcommittee to reject the request of Greenpeace to stage the protest at Bayside. That is the best decision to make because the threats it poses to the convention and the critical infrastructure site. It will enable the bottleneck of the port to be open the entire period the convention will be going on. Therefore, it will be a wise decision for Chairperson Salerno to decline the request.

Conclusion

Security Subcommittee should not purchase or use the LRADs in this situation, accept the Amnesty International's request for a permit and reject the request of Greenpeace for a demonstration permit to make sure the law is upheld and the convention takes place successfully. That will result in minimum legal issues that will arise. It is important to strike a balance between abiding by the law and maintaining public safety.

References

Braswell, M. C., McCarthy, B. R., & McCarthy, B. J. (2017). Justice, crime, and ethics. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YCklDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Legal+Issues+in+Criminal+Justice+Administration+&ots=VRf3XpLf5r&sig=O-VR_05NUMUR4Q9-Bv7kDOhGvgU

Cole, G. F., Smith, C. E., & DeJong, C. (2018). The American system of criminal justice. Cengage Learning. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Ra9EDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Legal+Issues+in+Criminal+Justice+Administration+&ots=fjj3L__Z_X&sig=HH4UbMAE153yUiBp11b_MvSfqZg