The majority of all police officers in the united states are employed on a ______ level.

Annotation

Primary Holding

A claim of excessive force by law enforcement during an arrest, stop, or other seizure of an individual is subject to the objective reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment, rather than a substantive due process standard under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, the facts and circumstances related to the use of force should drive the analysis, rather than any improper intent or motivation by the officer who used force.

Facts

When a diabetic patient began to experience an insulin reaction, he asked a friend to drive him to a convenience store to buy orange juice. Since the store was crowded when he arrived, the patient felt that he would not get the orange juice in time and asked his friend to drive him to another individual's house. A police officer noticed the patient leaving the store soon after he entered it and followed the friend's car. The officer eventually stopped the vehicle and ordered the patient and the friend to wait while he investigated what happened in the store. Other police officers handcuffed the patient after arriving at the scene, while failing to investigate or address his medical condition. The patient was injured during these events, but the original officer released him after some time had passed when he found out that no crime had occurred in the store.

Opinions

Majority

• William Hubbs Rehnquist (Author)
• Byron Raymond White
• John Paul Stevens
• Sandra Day O'Connor
• Antonin Scalia
• Anthony M. Kennedy
• Harry Andrew Blackmun
• William Joseph Brennan, Jr.
• Thurgood Marshall

Writing for a unanimous Court, Rehnquist ruled that an analysis of an excessive force claim should consider whether the search or seizure was objectively reasonable, based on how a reasonable police officer would have handled the same situation. The specific intent of the individual police officer who executed the search or seizure should not matter. While improper intentions do not make a reasonable use of force unconstitutional, good intentions do not shield an officer from liability if their use of force was objectively unreasonable. Thus, the Supreme Court rejected both the decisions of lower courts that had relied on the 14th Amendment and arguments that the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment should apply. (An Eighth Amendment standard also would be subjective.)

In deciding whether an officer used excessive force in a certain situation, a court should consider similar factors to those described in the earlier decision of Tennessee v. Garner. These include the severity of the crime, any threat posed by the individual to the safety of officers or other people, and whether the individual is trying to flee or resist arrest.

Case Commentary

This case helped shape police procedures for stops that involve the use of force. An officer cannot justify these actions based on a hunch or by showing that they acted in good faith. Instead, they must carefully articulate facts and events that made their use of force objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

The IACP adopted the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics at the 64th Annual IACP Conference and Exposition in October 1957. The Code of Ethics stands as a preface to the mission and commitment law enforcement agencies make to the public they serve.

Law Enforcement Code of Ethics

As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve the community; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality, and justice.

I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all and will behave in a manner that does not bring discredit to me or to my agency. I will maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed both in my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the law and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty. 

I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, political beliefs, aspirations, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities.

I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of police service. I will never engage in acts of corruption or bribery, nor will I condone such acts by other police officers. I will cooperate with all legally authorized agencies and their representatives in the pursuit of justice.

I know that I alone am responsible for my own standard of professional performance and will take every reasonable opportunity to enhance and improve my level of knowledge and competence.

I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession… law enforcement.

Which level of government has the greatest number of law enforcement employees?

What is the largest level of law enforcement in the United States today?

What are the main levels of law enforcement quizlet?

What is the police structure in the United States considered to be?