The Effectiveness of Social Media for Law Enforcement

Introduction 

In the article " Social Media: Establishing Criteria for Law Enforcement " by Robert Stuart, the author investigates how social media affects law enforcement activities. He begins by defining social media as an internet-enabled platform that enables multiple people to exchange information with each other. A few of the social media networks that he identifies include Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook. Stuart also points to the exponential growth and use of social media among people. He recognizes that social media can be used to positively influence law enforcement, that is, collection of evidence related to criminal activities and harmful individuals. However, he notes the use of social media by police officer leads to certain negatives, such as the mixing of social and personal life with professional duties. Last, Stuart provides several solutions to address the harmful effects of social media use among the police. The study paper gives a claim of value response that evaluates effectiveness of Stuart's arguments. 

Evaluation of the article 

Stuart (2013) state that social media assists in a criminal investigation. He noted that, “law enforcement agencies can use social media for public relations, crime prevention, and criminal investigation” (p. 2). The statement is true since social media is an accurate source of real-time information. Anyone conversant with social media can easily observe that people often post personal information that they should not share with the public. Numerous times, people have seen criminals brag about their loot publicly on social media networks (Stuart, 2013). Hence, police officers are free to use the information shared, even without getting a search warrant. The motivation to publicly boast about their crime might be due to ignorance or the need to appear relevant. However, it is through their dumb social media posts that police officers can track and arrest them before they more havoc. In 2015, the police in Fresno procured the services of a social media monitoring organization that stated it could eliminate the search warrant process by tracking the activities of specific suspected individuals through social media. Hence, social media is and remains to be an invaluable source of information during a criminal investigation by law enforcement officers as proposed by Stuart. 

Numerous individuals would also agree with Stuart’s argument that problems occur when law enforcement officers mix social and personal life on social media. Stuart (2013) states that “officers posting information about how sleepy they are on duty can call into question their fitness for duty in the event of a deadly force situation or a serious traffic accident” (p. 2). When law enforcers allow their social and personal aspects to interfere with the execution of their professional mandates, they bring shame to themselves and the police department. Mihalek and Frankel (2019), revealed how a customs and border protection officer publicly posted an offensive post on social media about migrant deaths. The law enforcement officer caused a massive stir on misuse of social media about law officials. Many people, including the officer’s fellow border patrol agents, publicly denounced the post as unprofessional and disgusting (Mihalek & Frankel, 2019) . The CBP issued a public statement, an apology stating that the comments made by the responsible officer did not reflect the conduct of their department and officers. Therefore, Stuart's is correct to assert that law enforcement officers sometimes misuse social media by posting inappropriate social media posts. 

It is impossible not to agree with Stuart's assertion that sometimes law enforcement officers post inappropriate information that attracts unwelcome attention about ongoing investigations. He notes that “a defence attorney in Texas found the Myspace page of his client’s arresting officer… listed the officer’s occupation as “super hero/serial killer” and included expressions of interest in intense violence and graphic pictures of women with carvings in their skin” (p. 2).Similar to how people post inappropriate and dumb posts on social media, the police also not spared (Mateescu et al., 2015). However, the mistake causes a more negative implicit since it might lead to a guilty person walking free due to inappropriate handling of evidence by law enforcement. The inappropriate information includes evidence related to some instances that might be currently ongoing in courts. Sharing of evidence on social media is wrong and is known to affect the outcome of investigations and court proceedings severely. 

The motivation of posting evidence and suspected criminals on social media by the police is yet to be accurately established. However, analysts argue that it is intended to name and shame individuals. Stuart (2013) explains that the sharing of evidence on social networks by the police is an increasingly unbecoming conduct. He explain that “though officers may face disciplinary proceedings if their actions are discovered, departments may rely on a “conduct unbecoming” (p.2). Thus, police officers use social media to name and shame suspected individuals despite there being directives or regulations protecting their actions. Dodge County in Wisconsin is particularly notorious for publicly posting the names and crimes of people after an arrest. At the beginning of August this year, the sheriff’s office declared that they would publicly expose the mugshots and names of individuals suspected to be intoxicated on Facebook (Chandler, 2019) . The sheriff proceeded to implement the directive despite personally admitting that they would hope to obtain voluntary compliance with the laws. This is to imply the action of his department were in no way protected by any policies or regulations. As explained by Stuart, the use of Facebook and other networks by the police, particularly the posting of evidence and suspects, comes with considerable privacy risks. 

I agree with the author's suggestion that law enforcement officers should be adequately trained on social media use. Stuart (2013) provides a creative way of teaching the police officers that begins with education on privacy and security issues regarding internet and computer use, which is closely followed by the practical application of social media policy. He asserts that, “law enforcement agencies must establish criteria for social media usage that balances the constitutional rights of officers while protecting the integrity of departments and investigation” (p.3). The only way to curb the rising number of police indiscretion on social media is through practical training. Besides, Stuart's suggestion that the training curriculum should be regularly updated is also thoughtful. Technology is advancing at a rapid rate, and the only way to keep up is by consistently updating content to cover information gaps associated with the changes. Therefore, Stuart's idea of training of law enforcement officers on social media has a positive influence. 

The only criticism in Stuart's article is his omission of the appropriate corrective actions to deal with the misuse of social networking sites by the police. He should have thoroughly tackled the subject from the people's perspectives and a legal perspective. His use of double standards in the article is rather uncalled for. While he recommends that the police use social media to arrest people that post a dumb post about their personal lives, he does not recommend the set of actions that should be followed when people officers are responsible for a similar crime. I expected him to recommend arrest/dismissal/suspension from work for police officers that misuse social media. Research on social media use by the police reveals that about seventy-two police officers were taken off the streets of Philadelphia misuse of social media (Bobby, 2019) . Such posts are seriously missing from Stuart's article. It might be suspected that Stuart did not cover this crucial section since he is a retired major in law enforcement, thereby his study might be biased. 

Conclusion 

Stuart did a commendable job by investigating the effects of social media use among law enforcement. One can easily relate to and even accept most of Stuart's suggestions/proposals. For instance, he states that social media helps police officers to conduct criminal investigations. He cited possible misuse of social media by officers when they mix their professional and private life. Stuart also recognizes that police post inappropriate information on social media. To deal with issues of police misuse of social media, he proposes the police be trained on its use. However, the main shortcoming in Stuart's article is his apparent bias by failing to recommend the corrective actions that should be taken on officers that misuse social media. 

References 

Bobby, A. (2019, June 19). 72 Philadelphia Police Officers Placed On Desk Duty Over Offensive Social Media Posts . Retrieved from NPR: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/19/734241210/72-philadelphia-police-officers-placed-on-desk-duty-over-offensive-social-media 

Chandler, S. (2019, Aug 8). Increasing Police Use Of Social Media Shaming Carries Grave Privacy Risks . Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonchandler/2019/08/18/increasing-police-use-of-social-media-shaming-carries-grave-privacy-risks/#7315b5267beb 

Mateescu, A., Brunton, D., Rosenblat, A., Patton, D., Gold, Z., & Boyd, D. (2015). Social media surveillance and law enforcement. Data Civ Rights , 27 , 2015-2027. 

Mihalek, D., & Frankel, R. (2019, July 11). The dangers of social media for law enforcement take center stage amid a series of scandals: Analysis . Retrieved from ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/US/dangers-social-media-law-enforcement-center-stage-amid/story?id=64252037 

Stuart, R. D. (2013). Social media: Establishing criteria for law enforcement use. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin , 82 (2), 1-3.