Police searches have been an issue in the US for some time because of public perception of the fact that some of the instances of police searches involve the violation of the freedom government intrusion into their lives as well as a limitation to their enjoyment of privacy. The police, both federal and state, are permitted, under justifiable circumstances to search people’s cars, houses, and other property in their search for evidence for criminal offenses, stolen items, illegal substances, or any other issue that could warrant a search (Cohen & Feldberg, 1991). In the US, it is common to hear of people who complain of police harassment, especially concerning the issues of searches. To some people, the police do not have legal ground to conduct searches on them and their property, an issue that has resulted in a series of legal confrontations between the police and the public.
It is notable that a significant number of people who loge complaints about the mode of handling by the police and the rest of the law enforcement officers have complain because of racial profiling (Weitzer & Tuch, 2009). For instance, it is argued that most of the policing activities in the country, including the search interventions to crime deterrence, have labelled the youth and other people of color as criminals compared to the rest of the populations (Weitzer & Tuch, 2009). While this is the dominant tone in most of the literature on crime deterrence strategies, including police searches, little exists on the ethical perspective of activity. For this reason, the objective of this article is to delve into the issue of the ethicality of searches, especially on drivers. At least, this perspective would allow a different angle of analyzing the efficacy of the strategy of crime deterrence away from the common approach that other researchers have reported in extant literature. I argue that police searches are ethical when conducted in line with the established legal framework and that they are unethical when conducted outside this context.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The most significant element defining the ethical framework of the police searches on persons consent. From an ethical perspective, consent refers to the idea that people have to accept the activities that others wish to engage with them before the acting parties would proceed with the action (Cohen & Feldberg, 1991). In other terms, consenting to something means that persons would be allowed to practice autonomy in their actions and decisions. The practice of the free will is one of the leading elements covering ethical practices in fields such as research, medical practice, legal practice, and other fields in which permission is one of the requirements of an activity. Through this perspective, therefore, it is possible for one to realize that police searches of any nature have ethical implications, which is the fact that the police need to obtain consent from suspected law offenders if they have to search them.
Understanding the meaning of consent is critical to comprehending its application in the chosen context. From a superficial perspective, consenting is as simple as saying ‘yes’ to a proposal from someone. However, the deepest underlying factor in the definition of consent is the fact that the individual making the proposal should always allow the other party to exercise their autonomy in decision-making (Davis, 2015). Of course, autonomy is another principle of ethical practice in any field suggesting the need for people to be independent in their actions and decisions. When applied to the consenting framework, it follows that a consent should be made independently, and that coercion should never be used to influence the decisions that people make concerning proposals at hand. While coercion primarily compelling someone to decide on something, the underlying principle of consent recognizes other elements that would make consenting to fall outside the autonomous framework.
A party proposing an idea to another one should always reveal the required type of information that would allow the other party to make critical decisions concerning whether to accept the proposal or to turn it down. It implies that it is the obligation of the proposing party to stick to honesty, which is yet another ethical principle (Pollock, 2014). One should not use their position in terms of knowledge and the objective of their proposal to influence the capacity of the other party to make racial decisions. Tricking people into consenting, therefore, is unethical because it violates the principles of honesty and autonomy in the actions and reactions of persons involved in specific contexts respectively. It is notable that the police and other law enforcement officials in the US and the world over have the characteristics that would make them capable of infringing the ethical requirements of ethical searching through their influence on the issue of consent.
According to Davis (2015), US courts have determined that in circumstances in which law enforcement officers, especially the police, suggest to the public about the need for the public to decide on issues related to law enforcement, the response of the public is not always free consent. Instead, the cited author argues that coercion and fear always drive public response to many of the ‘demands’ that the police make. The idea in this finding and argument is that any police requests, including the need to search the public should always strive to follow the framework of free consent. Consequently, the Supreme Court argued in Bumper v. North Carolina any searches conducted by the police pursuant to warrants may never be justifiable on the foundations of consent when it emerges that the warrants had been invalid (Pollock, 2014). The reasoning of the court in the cited case was that police officers always communicate the fact that civilians have no right to resist any advances from the law enforcement officials to search their property through their claim of authority implied by the search warrants. The ethical guideline of police searches of any nature, therefore, is the need for the police to allow civilians to consent to their search proposals even when they have search warrants.
Studies further posit that another circumstance in which the police may obtain the consent of civilians to search their property through coercion when they threaten to seek or to get a search warrant (Cohen & Feldberg, 1991). In this case, as the study suggests, civilians may always believe that the obtainment of warrants are nondiscretionary processes, which would force them into consenting to the search proposals advanced by the police. In this case, the consent would not be voluntary because the civilians did not have the freedom to exercise their free will (Pollock, 2014). What is clear from the two arguments, therefore, is the fact that the police should always allow the public to agree to proposals concerning searching their property before they proceed to conduct the searches. However, it should be noted that even in circumstances when the police do not have search warrants, the obtainment the consent of suspects is always significant in the determination of the ethicality of the actions of the police in their engagement with the public.
Searches of different types, including the warranted ones, should always put the interests of the civilians first. This argument implies that the police should be motivated to treat civilians as part of the citizenry first before perceiving them as suspects or criminals (Davis, 2015). From an ethical perspective, therefore, the police should not trick anyone into allowing them to conduct searches on their property or on the civilians. In fact, the law allows law enforcement officials to conduct searches on civilians in numerous circumstances, yet it allows persons the chances of ensuring that the processes is conducted in the most ethical way possible. The provision exists through suggesting that the police should never proceed to pursue their proposal in circumstances that would violet the consent requirements in their contact with civilians (Gardiner, 1990). The ethical issue in the manner of handling civilians by the police is has the backing of Fourth Amendment that promotes the right to privacy among the populace through outlawing any forms of unnecessary searches and seizures on the public. Apart from the production of a search warrant and other provisions in the law, the only other reason that the police would have in the justification of their conduct with civilians is when they act under probable cause.
What the courts in the US are yet to determine is the fact that some police officers always use trickery in luring the public into accepting their proposal to search their property. While it has been established as an unethical standard of practice, it should be understood that the public does not have the mechanism that would enable them to resist advances from the police. The police, in most cases, do not indicate to the person whom they wish to search that they have the option of refusing their search proposal since they are fond of phrases, such as “why don’t you let me see what is at back of your track?” In the event that some suspecting public wishes to object the proposal, the police have always been found to use other methods that would override the free will of the civilians. The only thing that the law provides on the issue of forced consent is the fact that the affected person may use it against the prosecution in arguing that they did not consent to search and provide a better chance for the defense team to suppress evidence. Normally, the police would attempt to lure people into consenting to their demands through suggesting that their noncompliance would suggest that they are hiding something related to the cause of the search. In this case, the police should strive to be ethical enough to let the suspect alone if they learn of their reluctance to consent to their suggestions unless other legally, applicable scenarios apply to the case.
In conclusion, the police in the US may be used to tricking civilians into allowing them to search their vehicles, homes, and other property. Two reasons explain the high frequency of this behavior. First, the public is mostly unaware of the ethical implications of their encounters with the police. Second, the police unknowingly or knowingly violate the ethical provisions of their encounter with civilians. In both cases, the police compromise the ability of the civilians to exercise their autonomy in decision-making. In this case, the police often make demands instead of requests to search individuals and their property through forcing them to consent. This unethical behavior is somewhat recognized by the American courts, yet only so much has been done policy wise to curb instances in which the police would trick the public into consenting to their demands. It would be helpful for the courts to suggest that the police treat people as citizens before perceiving them as suspects or criminals, which would suggest that they exercise ethical conduct in their conduct with civilians.
References
Cohen, H., & Feldberg, M. (1991). Power and restraint: The moral dimension of police work . ABC-CLIO.
Davis, W. L. (2015). Police-Community Relations: Bridging the Gap . Xlibris Corporation.
Gardiner, T. G. (1980). Consent to Search in Response to Police Threats to Seek or to Obtain a Search Warrant: Some Alternatives. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) , 71 (2), 163-172.
Pollock, J. M. (2014). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice . Nelson Education.
Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (2009). Race, class, and perceptions of discrimination by the police. Crime & Delinquency , 45 (4), 494-507.
