Police Accountability: Consequences Of Officers Breaking The Law

Police officers are not exempt from the law. When police officers break the law, they can be punished just like any other citizen. Courts have held police officers accountable for their wrongdoing, misconduct, and illegal acts. Police officers can be imprisoned, fined, or placed on probation for their crimes. However, research suggests that police officers are statistically more likely to get away with crimes than civilians and often face less severe punishment when convicted. Factors such as whether the officer was on or off duty, the presence of drugs, and the officer's rank can influence the severity of the punishment.

Police officers can be punished and face the same sentences as civilians

Police officers are not above the law. When police officers break the law, they can be punished and face the same sentences as civilians. Courts have held police officers accountable for their wrongdoing, misconduct, and illegal acts. If a police officer is guilty of a crime, a judge can sentence the officer to the same punishments as a civilian. The officer can serve time in prison, pay fines, and be placed on probation.

For example, if a police officer is guilty of domestic violence, hit and run, or any other crime, they can be sentenced to prison, just like a civilian would. Police officers are also subject to the same criminal laws as civilians and can be charged with offences such as assault, false imprisonment, and corruption.

Additionally, police officers can be sued for violating an individual's civil rights during an arrest or detention. For instance, if a police officer arrests someone without probable cause, any evidence obtained during the wrongful arrest is inadmissible in court, and the individual may be entitled to financial compensation for damages incurred.

While police officers have certain powers that civilians do not, such as the ability to conduct searches and seizures with a warrant or probable cause, they are still bound by the law and can be held accountable for their actions. Police officers who break the law face the same consequences as civilians and can be punished and sentenced accordingly.

Officers are statistically more likely to get away with crimes than civilians

Police officers are expected to obey the law at all times, regardless of whether they are on or off duty. However, statistics and reports suggest that officers are more likely to get away with crimes compared to civilians.

The unique nature of their job, which involves the use of force and weapons, means that police officers are often analysed through the lens of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution to determine the reasonableness of their actions. This analysis considers whether a reasonable officer in the same position would have felt the need to use deadly force. As a result, the question is often not whether an officer used force, but whether the force was justified.

This distinction is significant because it raises the threshold for prosecution and conviction. In cases of police killings, it is notoriously difficult to prove that the use of force was unjustified, leading to a perception that police officers receive special treatment in the criminal justice system. This perception is further reinforced by the institutional relationship between prosecutor's offices and police departments, which can create an appearance of bias or favouritism.

Furthermore, the process of investigating and prosecuting police officers tends to be slower than that of civilians, which can be attributed to the complexity of cases involving law enforcement and the need to carefully scrutinise the actions of officers. While this careful scrutiny is necessary to ensure justice, it can also contribute to the perception that police officers are treated differently and may have a higher chance of evading consequences for their actions.

The unique position of police officers in the criminal justice system can lead to a higher likelihood of their crimes being justified or excused, resulting in a lower conviction rate compared to civilians. This disparity in treatment underscores the importance of independent oversight, citizen involvement, and continued reform to ensure accountability and maintain public trust in law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

Qualified immunity shields officers from being charged for necessary actions

Police officers are not above the law. When they break the law, they can be punished just like any other citizen. However, the legal doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials, including police officers, from being held accountable for violating people's constitutional rights. This means that officers are protected from being sued for actions carried out during the course of their employment, even if those actions are later deemed to be unlawful.

The Supreme Court created the doctrine of qualified immunity in 1967, with the stated intention of protecting government employees from frivolous lawsuits. However, in practice, it has often shielded police officers from accountability for misconduct and brutality. To hold an officer liable for their actions, a plaintiff must prove two things: that the officer's conduct was unlawful, and that the officer should have known they were violating the law because a prior court case had already deemed similar actions to be illegal. This second requirement is particularly powerful, as courts often require a nearly identical previous case to be cited as precedent.

Qualified immunity has been criticised by some Supreme Court justices, who argue that it has become an "absolute shield" for police officers, allowing them to act with impunity and avoiding consequences for even blatant constitutional violations. Despite this criticism, the doctrine of qualified immunity remains in place, continuing to protect officers from legal consequences for their actions.

Police unions can be a barrier to prosecution

Police unions have been criticised for shielding officers from accountability for misconduct and excessive force. Contracts negotiated between unions and public bodies can erect obstacles to the filing of complaints, impose time limits on investigations, and limit the public's ability to scrutinise disciplinary processes. This lack of transparency and accountability can have a profound impact on communities that already face aggressive policing and are marginalised, such as poor Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities.

The consensus following the killing of George Floyd is that police unions protect officers who behave poorly and impede reforms that could improve policing and community relations. The power of police unions has translated into excessive job protections, enabling a few officers to act with impunity. This inability to hold officers accountable poisons public relations and puts lives at risk.

Unions have been accused of perpetuating a "blue wall of silence", where good officers defend bad officers, and leaders vigorously defend those accused of misconduct. This dynamic can foster the perception that police unions are uninterested in better policing and indifferent to victims of police abuse.

Additionally, police unions have amassed significant political capital through lobbying and cultivating relationships with politicians. They have influenced policies regarding citizen oversight of police conduct and advised officers on how to avoid reprimand for misconduct. The institutional power they wield can act as a barrier to prosecution and reform, leading to calls from labour activists and union members for police unions to be expelled from the labour movement.

Local law enforcement agencies can effectively police their officers

In addition, police officers are subject to internal department discipline, which can result in suspension or termination. Local law enforcement agencies have the authority to investigate and discipline their officers for misconduct. This can include administrative leave, demotion, or transfer to a different department or location.

Furthermore, local law enforcement agencies can implement preventive measures to reduce the likelihood of officer misconduct. This can include improved training, stricter policies and procedures, and increased supervision and accountability. For example, requiring officers to wear body cameras can provide additional oversight and deter misconduct.

While police officers may face similar legal consequences as civilians when breaking the law, there are also unique considerations for officers. Qualified immunity, a legal protection for officers carrying out their job duties, can shield them from certain charges or lawsuits. However, this does not provide blanket immunity, and officers can still be held accountable for misconduct, assault, or murder.

Overall, local law enforcement agencies have the tools and authority to effectively police their officers and hold them accountable for their actions. While there may be challenges and complexities, the majority of departments take their responsibility to self-police seriously, and the criminal justice system remains responsive to cases of officer misconduct, as evidenced by a 72% conviction rate in studied cases where an officer was charged.

Frequently asked questions