Four basic means of identifying a suspect
Video Identification
Video identification refers to a recognition process whereby a bystander is required to watch a video clip containing moving images of the suspect alongside other people who resemble the suspect (McElvain & Kposowa, 2008). The identicalness of the persons portrayed in the video with the suspect should be in terms of age, physical appearance, and position in life. In this case, the suspect is identified using a certain distinguishing feature such as a unique scar or tattoo that is not in the other suspects.
Identification parade
Suspect identification using this method involves the parading of the suspect alongside at least eight other people resembling him or her in terms of age, height, general appearance, and position in life (Cole, 2009). The suspect is allowed to choose his/her position in the line to avoid discrimination and possible bias. Just as in the case of video identification, the witness is required to scrutinise the team and identify the suspect based on his/her distinct features.
Group identification
This type of identification involves the witness identifying the suspect from an informal place such as a bus station, shopping mall, or other public locations (Cole, 2009). In such a case, the suspect is within a group of people who do not necessarily resemble him or her. Unlike in the other identification methods described in this paper where the suspect’s consent is necessary, the suspect may or may not be notified in a group identification setting.
Confrontation
In a confrontation identification method, the bystander is introduced to the suspect to confirm if the suspect is the person in question. As opposed to the other identification methods discussed in this paper where the suspect is identified in a group setting, in this method, the suspect is alone in a formal place such as in a police cell.
Elements that constitute an arrest
Intent
The aspect of intent may be described as the suspect’s knowledge of the intention of the concerned law enforcement officers to arrest him/her. The intent of an officer to arrest the suspect may be communicated orally or through implications. Generally, the court determines if the aspect of intent was complied with by assessing whether a reasonable person would think s/he was being arrested.
Authority
The element of authority refers to the legal power of the concerned police officer to arrest the suspect. The laws governing this element of arrest varies from one state to the other based on the local legislation of the concerned state (Bazley, Lersch, & Mieczkowski, 2007). In some states, police officers are mandated to make arrests anytime and at any place while in some other states, such arrests are only legal when made by an officer on duty. The courts have the responsibility of determining if an arrest was legally made based on state laws.
Subjection
The element of subjection refers to the act of detaining or bringing the suspect under the control of the law enforcers. Subjection may either be actual or conservative seizure depending on the circumstances leading to the arrest. An actual seizure refers to the involuntary arrest of the suspect and the subsequent denial of the freedom of movement. On the other hand, a constructive seizure occurs when the concerned suspect presents himself or herself to the police voluntarily.
Understanding
For an arrest to be legal and valid, the suspect must understand that s/he is being arrested. The police officers are required by the law to notify the suspect expressly that they intend to make an arrest (Cole, 2009). However, in some instances, actions are deemed sufficient to notify the suspect that s/he is being arrested. The element of understanding is only applicable to persons who can reasonably recognize the act. Therefore, persons under the influence of drugs or mentally ill might not require being notified of the arrest.
Amount of force that can be used to make an arrest
Police officers are justified to use reasonable force when making an arrest. The reasonableness of the force used by the officer depends on the circumstances of the individual case (McElvain & Kposowa, 2008). The court has the responsibility of determining whether the police officer in question acted within his or her scope when making the arrest. When determining whether the force used was reasonable, the courts consider the following:
- The severity of the crime
- Whether the suspect posed a threat to the officer and the public
- Whether the suspect was resisting or attempting to flee
The police officers are entitled to use force for suspects of severe crimes such as murder or rape. Additionally, police officers are justified to use force if the suspect poses an immediate danger to the public. However, in situations where the suspect does not resist arrest or does not threaten to cause harm to the officer, the use of force is unjustifiable.
Civil liability of officers making an arrest
As stated previously in this paper, the law enforcers are mandated to use reasonable force when making arrests. However, if such force exceeds the acceptable limit, the police officer is personally liable for the harm inflicted on the victim. The plaintiff may sue the police officer for the tort of assault or battery (Terrill, Leinfelt, & Kwak, 2008).
In the event that the concerned officer is found guilty of the identified tort, s/he will be required to pay damages to the aggrieved party. However, inasmuch as the victim of torture is entitled to seek legal redress, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. The complaint must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the police officer used excessive force when making the arrest. Additionally, the plaintiff must have suffered some physical or mental harm to demand legal redress successfully.
Civil liability protection for officers
A police officer charged with abusing the suspect during an arrest may avoid civil liability by proving that the force used was necessary to put the suspect into custody. In Graham v. Connor, 490 (1989), the court held that police officer were entitled to use force to stop a suspect from fleeing or counter-resistance to the arrest (Bazley et al., 2007).
In the Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the court held that police officer were entitled to use deadly force if the suspect posed a great threat to either the officers or the public (McElvain & Kposowa, 2008). Therefore, an officer may defend his/her use of force by alluding that the suspect was a threat to public peace. However, the mentioned case is only applicable if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the suspect posed an imminent threat to public peace or the security of the police officer in question.
References
Bazley, D., Lersch, M., & Mieczkowski, T. (2007). Officer force versus suspect resistance: A gendered analysis of patrol officers in an urban police department. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(2), 183-192.
Cole, S. A. (2009). Suspect Identities: A history of fingerprinting and criminal identification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McElvain, P., & Kposowa, J. (2008). Police officer characteristics and the likelihood of using deadly force. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4), 505-521.
Terrill, W., Leinfelt, H., & Kwak, D. (2008). Examining police use of force: A smaller agency perspective. Policing, 31(1), 57-76.