Ethics and liability in law enforcement

Introduction

Law enforcement is the collective term for professionals who are dedicated to upholding and enforcing the laws and statutes that are currently in force in a given jurisdiction. There are law enforcement jobs that focus on local settings, while others are focused more on upholding and enforcing national laws. In addition to enforcing laws, the function of legal enforcement also involves managing the punishment process for people who are convicted of crimes, up to and including managing the process of incarceration. (Delattre,12)

LAW ENFORCEMENT LIABILITY

Law enforcement officials are subject to civil liability for intentional actions on their part to deprive citizens of constitutional rights. This liability derives primarily from the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, enacted as a response to the systematic injustices leveled against blacks in the aftermath of the Civil War. Although written with a narrow constituency in mind, the Act is cast in broad terms, providing a remedy against “any person” who, under color of state law, deprives any person of “any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution.” The Act is codified as 42 U.S.C. §1983.

During the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court began widening the coverage of Section 1983 to match its expansive language. In Monroe v. Pape (1961), the Court held that Section 1983 provides a remedy for any constitutional violation committed under color of state law. Prior to that decision, the Court had left unresolved the question of whether the phrase “under color of state law” includes actions taken by public officials in the course of their duties, but not mandated by the law of the state. In 1971, the Court went a step further, ruling in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics that a private right of action existed for violations of constitutional rights by federal officials, analogous to that of Section 1983. (Delattre,12)These decisions significantly increased the limits of personal liability for state and federal officers.

At the same time, the Court developed a scheme to protect individual public officials from Section 1983 and Bivens liability. Common law had long recognized certain immunities for public officials. Judges, legislators, prosecutors, the president, and other members of the executive branch are all absolutely immune from liability for actions taken within the scope of their discretionary authority. In 1967, the Court began a process of extending a qualified immunity to law enforcement officers and other government officials for actions taken during the execution of their official duties.

In Pierson v. Ray, the Court established a good-faith defense for public officials. The Pierson Court held that police officers who had arrested several black ministers in a “whites only” area of a train station were immune from damages so long as they “reasonably believed in good faith that the arrest was constitutional.” The Pierson standard contained both an objective component (reasonable belief) and a subjective component (good faith).

In Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Supreme Court abandoned the subjective prong of the test, thus broadening the scope of ...