Police Accountability: Ensuring Lawful Enforcement

Police officers are meant to uphold the law, but there are times when they may find themselves breaking it. While it is often tolerated, there are still circumstances where police officers can be held accountable for their actions. For instance, in the United States, citizens have rights that are protected by the Constitution, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to remain silent, the right to a fair trial, and the right to legal counsel. These rights are important to remember when interacting with law enforcement officers, as citizens may unintentionally waive them if they are unaware. Additionally, police officers are expected to behave in a way that protects the safety of citizens and respects their rights, even after they have been asserted. While citizens cannot always assume that this will be the case, staying calm and refraining from exhibiting hostility can help reduce the risk of harm during police encounters.

US citizens have the right to be free from unreasonable searches

The Fourth Amendment states:

> The right 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 persons or things to be seized.

This means that law enforcement officers cannot simply search or seize a person or their property without a valid reason and the proper authorisation. There are, however, some exceptions to this rule. For example, a warrantless search may be deemed lawful if an officer has been given consent to search, if the search is related to a lawful arrest, or if there is probable cause and exigent circumstances, such as a situation where people are in imminent danger.

In the case of a warrantless search, the burden of proof falls on the law enforcement officer to demonstrate probable cause and exigent circumstances. The Fourth Amendment also applies to electronic devices, and law enforcement must obtain a search warrant to access these.

While the Fourth Amendment provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, it is important to note that it does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, but only those deemed unreasonable and carried out by the government.

Citizens also have the right to be free from unreasonable seizures

However, cops can (and do) type license plate numbers into their database to check for warrants and insurance, which could be a valid reason for a stop. They can also pull someone over for minor traffic violations. Even so, officers cannot detain someone for an extended period without justification.

To arrest someone, an officer needs a higher level of justification: probable cause. This heavier standard of proof is used because courts hold cops and prosecutors accountable when they attempt to deprive citizens of their liberties. If an officer cannot satisfy this higher threshold, then the arrest is illegal.

If an officer detains someone in public, the person only has to answer questions about their name, date of birth, and address. If the officer questions them about anything else, the person should ask if they are free to leave. If the officer says no, the person should state that they won't answer any other questions without their lawyer present.

If an officer pulls someone over, they can only keep them on the side of the road long enough to check their driver's license and warrants, and resolve the reason for the stop. After the officer returns their license, the person should ask if they are free to leave.

If an officer arrests someone illegally, the person should remain calm and not fight or resist. The only thing the person should say after an arrest is, "I will not answer any questions without my lawyer."

The right to remain silent

The right to silence is not a recent development. Its origin is attributed to Sir Edward Coke's challenge to the ecclesiastical courts and their ex officio oath in the late 17th century. In the United States, the right to remain silent was enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that " [n]o person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".

In practice, the right to remain silent is often invoked by individuals during police interviews or interrogations. In such situations, it is important to note that the right to silence only applies once the police have advised the person of their Miranda rights, which they are obligated to do once the person has been placed under arrest.

To invoke the right to remain silent, an individual can use statements such as "I am exercising my right to remain silent" or "I will not speak until I talk with my attorney". It is important to be clear and explicit when invoking this right.

The right to a fair trial

A fair trial is one that is "conducted fairly, justly, and with procedural regularity by an impartial judge". The right to a fair trial includes the following specific rights:

• The right to be heard by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal
• The right to a public hearing
• The right to be heard within a reasonable time
• The right to counsel
• The right to interpretation
• The right to a speedy trial

To ensure a fair trial, courts must be impartial and independent, and those who determine guilt or innocence must be neutral and make a fair assessment of the facts. The right to a fair trial also includes the right to appeal a conviction or sentence and the prohibition of double jeopardy.

The right to be protected by a lawyer

This right to legal counsel is closely related to the right to silence and other rights incident to arrest, known as Miranda rights. It is important to note that this right is only applicable once a criminal case against an individual has commenced, and during certain preliminary proceedings.

The Supreme Court has also recognised that defendants have the right to counsel of their choosing. However, a court may deny this choice in certain situations, such as if the attorney has a significant conflict of interest. Additionally, the right to counsel of choice does not extend to defendants who require public defenders.

If an individual cannot afford an attorney, the government has a duty to make counsel available, although this duty is not always fulfilled. In the federal court system, federal public defenders represent defendants who meet a defined standard for indigence.

Deprivation of the right to counsel or denial of a choice of attorney without good cause should result in the reversal of a conviction, according to the Supreme Court. Even if an individual is represented by an attorney of their choosing, they may be entitled to relief on appeal if the attorney did not provide adequate representation.

It is worth noting that immigration proceedings, including deportation hearings, are considered civil in nature, so the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in these cases.

Frequently asked questions