Abuseofpolice - Blog Posts

The Abuse of Police Power

Occurrences on the news shows police brutality almost every day; just recently, Dereck Chavin, the cop who murdered George Floyd was charged with murder, and though that was a serious win, at the same time Makiyah Bryant was killed by the Columbus Police Department. The system has and always will be a discriminatory one based on race and class, and unless there’s real.

The first documented and filmed case of abuse of police power was the beating and death of Rodney King; then in 2014 the death of Micheal Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Normally, the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect your rights from normally being harassed from a task or police force, like the fourth amendment, which involves the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, which means the Constitution declares a person has the right to be secure in their homes and in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. A person has the right against arrest without probable cause and the right to due process of law. Not every police member is a racist, but every police member is a part of a racist and oppressive system.

Forty years ago, the Bill of Rights used to protect every citizen from brutality, wasn’t taken as seriously as it is today in court justice proceedings around the country, most likely because modern technology hadn’t progressed as it has now, where if you hear any word of police assaulting a citizen, you can be sure it will be filmed. ‘’Police operations during that period were often far more informal than they are today, and investigating officers frequently assumed that they could come and go as they pleased, even to the extent of invading someone’s home without a search warrant. Interrogations could quickly turn violent, and the infamous “rubber hose,” which was reputed to leave few marks on the body, was probably more widely used during the questioning of suspects than many would like to believe. Similarly, ‘doing things by the book’ could mean the use of thick telephone books for beating suspects, since the books spread out the force of blows and left few visible bruises.’’

Every branch of the government, including the legislative, judicial, and presidential branches of the government is supposed to be held accountable by the other branches. The system was designed to ensure that no other individual or agency can become powerful enough to take away the rights and many freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution but without that accountability, a police agency can have absolute power based more on political considerations and personal vendettas than objective considerations on guilt or innocence. The court systems would become the area for resolution, not just between citizens and the agencies of government. After handling by the justice system, individuals who feel that they have not received respect and dignity under the law can appeal to the courts for correction. Those appeals can be based on procedural issues and are independent of more narrow considerations of guilt and innocence. In the case of search and seizure, there have been many court cases that involve illegally searches and seizure, which is any evidence seized without regard to the principles of due process as described by the Bill of Rights, particularly the fourth amendment, which says, ‘the rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the individuals or things to be seized’; most illegally seized evidence is the result of police searches.’

The Fourth Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights, was adopted by Congress and became effective on December 15, 1791. The first case concerning search and seizure was that of Weeks. U.S (1914), whose case was upturned because federal agents found the right man, suspected of breaking a federal crime by using the U.S mail to sell lottery tickets, but unfortunately the case was overturned because those federal agents conducted a home search without a warrant; nevermind that they found incriminating evidence. Which means that Weeks, whom federal agents could have proved to a federal/Supreme Court that he was guilty, was set free because the police were also guilty. The Weeks case forms the basis of what is now called the exclusionary rule, which holds that evidence illegally seized by the police cannot be used in a trial. The rule acts as a control over police behavior and specifically focuses on the failure of officers to obtain warrants authorizing them either to conduct searches or to effect arrests, especially where arrest may lead to the acquisition of incriminating statements or to the seizure of physical evidence. The decision of the Supreme Court in the Weeks case was binding, at the time, only on federal officers because only federal agents were involved in the illegal seizure.

There are exceptions to the exclusionary rule, of course, like the exception of the fleeting target that permits law enforcement officers to search a motor vehicle based on probable cause but without a warrant, and is predicated on the fact that vehicles can quickly leave the jurisdiction of a law enforcement agency. Any search and seizure that was illegally obtained or violated due process will be seen as ‘tainted evidence’. The Silverthorne Lumber case (1920) created a new legal principle that excludes from introduction at trial and any evidence later developed as a result of an illegal search is called the fruit of the poisonous tree. When an emergency search is needed, it is justified for the police on the basis of some immediate and overriding need, such as public safety, the likely escape of a dangerous suspect, or the removal or destruction of evidence. Several cases improved the light on this, like Maryland vs. Buie (1990), which extended the authority of police to search locations in a house where a potentially dangerous person could hide while an arrest warrant is being served. Searches like this can save lives by disarming felons or by uncovering medical reasons for an emergency situation; they may also prevent suspects from escaping or destroying evidence. Emergency searches can fall under the exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The Legal Counsel of Division of the FBI provides the guidelines, after the 1979 case of Arkansas v. Sanders, where the Supreme Court had ruled, ‘‘where the societal costs of obtaining a warrant, such as danger to law officers or the risks of loss or destruction of evidence, outweigh the reasons for prior recourse to a neutral magistrate.’ The guidelines and conditions apply that 1.) There was probable cause at the time of the search to believe that there was evidence concealed on the person searched, 2.) there was probable cause to believe an emergency threat of destruction of evidence existed at the time of the search, 3.) the officer had no prior opportunity to obtain a warrant authorizing the search, 4.) and the action was no greater than necessary to eliminate the threat of destruction of evidence.