The interaction between police officers and members of the public can lead to criminal liability on the part of citizens, based on the acts and omissions of the citizen during the interaction. However, police officers should also act within the law and follow the standard procedure to avoid civil liability on their part and on behalf of their employers (Miller & Wright, 2019). Criminal liability involves the breach of a specific provision of applicable criminal law within a specific jurisdiction. On the other hand, civil liability involves a tort for which the victim can have a valid claim under the civil procedure. In the instant scenario, the three individuals, two of whom interacted with Officer Jones, committed a total of four crimes. However, the official actions of Officer Jones created liability to the state for unlawful search and seizure. The chain of events in the scenario commences with the acts that create the first crime of assault and battery. According to the totality of the case, a woman was involved in domestic violence with her husband. As a consequence of domestic violence, the woman had severe lacerations on her head and lips. Whereas accidental injuries can happen during a domestic violence event, such as a fall, the facts of the case also indicate that the woman did not want her husband to get arrested. Thus presupposition points to her injuries being the consequence of unlawful action by her husband. Based on the above, the victim’s husband hit the victim to the extent of causing open wounds on her face, which creates criminal liability for assault and battery. Having run into a police officer while openly bleeding, the victim of domestic violence committed the crime of filing a false report to the police. According to the facts of the case, the victim created a false narrative to explain her injuries. The woman informed the police officer that she had been the victim of an armed robbery by a perpetrator who was also carrying a gun. This false narrative in itself created an impression on the police officer that there was an active threat of violent robbery in the vicinity. The false information also led to the apprehension of a third party, which led to a violent encounter between the third party and Officer Jones. In providing actionable false information to the police officer about a supposed crime, the victim of domestic violence became the perpetrator of the crime of giving false information to the police (Miller & Wright, 2019). The third crime in the scenario is failing to obey the lawful instructions of a police officer who was in the course of duty. As a background for the instant crime, Officer Jones was in the material time wearing his official uniform and on patrol. In his encounter with the unnamed third party, Officer Jones indicated that he is a police officer and asks him to stop. After stopping and turning around, Officer Jones demands that the individual puts his hands where the officer can see them. The individual fails to obey this important order, which causes Officer Jones to discharge his weapon. The failure to obey in itself amounted to a crime (Miller & Wright, 2019). Finally, the unnamed individual who was shot by Officer Jones also committed the crime of being in possession of narcotics with intent to distribute. When Officer Jones searched the individual, he found a baggie that was full of other baggies containing cocaine. The victim also carried a cell phone with him. Based on the facts of the case, the victim was in a high-crime area in the wee hours of the night. The only logical explanation for a bag full of other bags containing small amounts of cocaine was an intent to distribute the illegal drug (Kennedy, Unah & Wahlers, 2018). The actions of Officer Jones exposed the officer, police department and the city for an unlawful search and seizure that exposed the unnamed individual to inordinate criminal liability. For background, the facts of the case confirm that Officer Jones was acting on false information when he apprehended the unnamed individual. However, the fact that the woman who reported the crime was bleeding gave the information and indicia of credibility. The act of shooting the individual was also legal as Officer Jones could reasonably have feared for his life (Miller & Wright, 2019). However, a casual frisk would have revealed that the unnamed individual could not be the armed robber that Officer Jones was looking for. The supposed robber was supposed to be carrying a gun and a wallet none of which the now injured individual had in his person. As per the facts of the case, Officer Jones “located” a baggie containing drugs. This action suggests a more in-depth search by Officer Jones upon the victim. An unlawful search and seizure in itself may not elicit civil liability unless it is inordinately unreasonable. The in-depth search undertaken by Officer Jones meets the threshold for being objectively unreasonable as determined in Saucier v. Katz more so due to the prior shooting incidence triggered by false information. The unlawful search by itself exposes Officer Jones, his department, and the city to civil liability for breach of privacy.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, the scenario presents four events that create criminal liability and one event that create civil liability. Two of the crimes, assault and battery on the one hand and possession with intent to distribute, are fairly straight forward. However, the two other crimes, giving false information and failing to obey a lawful order from a police officer, are procedural. Similarly, procedural issues also create civil liability for Officer Jones, hos department, and the city. Therefore, the very interaction between members of the public and police officers can lead to criminal liability on the part of members of the public even when no substance crimes are involved. Police officers also need to adhere to relevant laws to avoid civil liability.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Kennedy, J. E., Unah, I., & Wahlers, K. (2018). Sharks and Minnows in the War on Drugs: A Study of Quantity, Race and Drug Type in Drug Arrests. UCDL Rev. , 52 , 729.
Miller, M. L., & Wright, R. F. (2019). Criminal Procedures: The Police . Aspen Publishers.
Saucier v. Katz , 533 U.S. 194, 121 S. Ct. 2151, 150 L. Ed. 2d 272 (2001).
