Discretion

Name

Institution

Discretion

Each day, police officers encounter a range of situations which they have to deal with. Not two situation encountered by the officers can ever be similar, even when a range of situation are examined over a long period of time. Whenever they encounter these situations, the officers have to decide on specific issues on their own or with some help or advice from senior or colleagues (The Rynard Law Firm, n.d.). This is what brings about police desecration. The situations present discretionary issues to the police officers and the officer have to take their chances with probability of upholding the law or undermining the rights of citizens.

The use of force in arrests is one of the greatest discretionary issues faced by the police. Arrest is a normal police operational procedure use to apprehend suspects and offenders. However, arrest are not easy since some suspects try to resist being arrested prompting the police to use alternative means, preferably force to take the suspects or criminals in to custody. The police have to determine when to use for and when not to use force. They also have to decide on the exact amount of force that is supposed to be used during the arrest. A real life situation of arrest using force is arrest of an offender found driving under influence of alcohol or other drugs (Magnoli, 2008).

The normal protocol for arresting this kind of offender is to ask them to pull off the road and ask then step out of the car showing the police officer their hands. The police officer should then tell the subject that he or she is under arrest and proceed to subdue them by handcuffing them and afterwards transport them to the police station for interrogation. During such arrest the police can only use force when the offender tries to resist arrest. In the arrest of the drug intoxicated drive the officer has only two discretionary alternatives; to use force or not to use force. How since subjects who are under influence are normally problematic, force such as use of a teaser may be necessary.

According to the most policies departments’ law enforcement manuals, officer can use force based on the conduct of the suspect, personal factors such as size, age, level of skills and the ration of officer to that of the subjects; closeness to weapons; suspects mental capacity and suspected influence of alcohol or drugs; the magnitude of the offense; resources available to the officer during the circumstance; experience and training of the police officer; risk of escape; potential of injury to the officers, citizens and suspects.

The use of force in deployed in this particular situation is reasonable and therefore it is right (May & Headley, 2008). The subject is under influence and therefore, not in a proper mental state that can allow him to go along with the arrest without resistance. The police use of a teaser is thus correct to ensure that he was totally subdued and would not cause any harm to the officers (Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002).

In this instance the police chief in charge of the arrest makes proper use of the desecration. The officer and his team are faced with a situation in which they needed to make a quick decision on how to arrest an obviously intoxicated subject without harm themselves, onlookers and property. The officers should choose the decision to use a teaser to subdue the suspect without contravening the law enforcement policies.

Police chiefs also encounter discretionary issues when deploying police officers to their duties (The Rynard Law Firm, n.d.). A police chief maintains the discretion to deploy unfarmed patrol officers or not. A situation that may require discretion in deployment is deployment of uniformed patrol officer following an increase in cases of crime in a town. The normal protocol for deployment of patrol officers requires proper examination of the situation by relevant police to determine whether it is necessary to deploy uniformed patrol officers or not (Stevens, 2009). In a situation where the police chief has to act alone he/she is face with several discretional challenges, which include deploying uniformed patrol officers, deploying non-uniformed patrol officers, are letting the normal patrol routines to continue.

Complying with controlling protocols in deployment uniformed officers ensures that there is proper planning to avail necessary resources. It also ensures proper accountability of the activities of the patrol team. The controlling protocols also ensure that the patrol team has the proper basic composition to deal with issues such as interruption of crime, deterrence of crime and arrests (Stevens, 2009).

Exercise of discretion in deployment of uniformed officers by a police chief may however be necessary in rapid deployment situation or emergency situation. The urgency of the situation to be contained justifies the discretional act. The police chief may relay on his knowledge on the crime in this region and the police officers and a deployment any number of uniformed police officers in a team of his desired composition. In deploying the officers the police chief relays on his judgment of the situation to determine whether there is need for such deployment (Kuper & Kuper, 2003). If the police chief buys time waiting for correspondence from his seniors, the situation on the ground may get worse and require more officers and resources.

On the basis of the above, discretion issues present dilemmas to police chiefs. The police chiefs have to take a decision to do what can be considered as going against the set police protocol or the law in order to achieve greater good.

References

Kuper, A., & Kuper, J. (2003). The social science encyclopedia. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Magnoli, G. (2008). Police Use of Force Manuals Emphasize Officer Discretion, Noozhawk Review Finds. Retrieved from http://www.noozhawk.com/article/121811_police_use_of_force.

May, D. A. & Headley, J. E. (2008). Reasonable Use of Force by Police: Seizures, Firearms, and High-Speed Chases. New York: Peter Lang.

Stevens, D. (2009). An Introduction to American Policing. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers

Terrill, W. & Mastrofski, S. D. (2002). Situational and officer-based determinants of police coercion. Justice Quarterly 19(2):215-248.

The Rynard Law Firm. (n.d.). Police Discretion. Retrieved from http://rynardlaw.com/Article6.aspx.