Protection from Unreasonable Search and Seizure

Remove all ads!

Justify

to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right
to show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done.

for example, a firearms officer holds his weapon to a suspect who he has reason to believe is armed.
He shouts "put your hands up" and the suspect reaches for his pocket, the officer fires.

he states that his shooting was justified because he believed that the suspect was armed and posed a significant threat to his safety.

as opposed to,

The officer shouts "put your hands up", the suspect complys and then the officer shoots him anyway.
Hard to justify that one.

 

Drew, if you invite them in, they have the right to visually search wherever you let them go (just as would any guest). If you tell them to leave and they refuse (without probable cause), they're tresspassing. At least, that's how I understand it.

Shoshino, what I meant was, evidence found through the illegal search may be justification for some. Do you expect the force to back an officer then? They have 'justified' their act.

 

If they say "Let me in, I need to search the premises," without probable cause and you say "OK," it's still an unlawful search. Whether you resist the officer or allow him entry without resisting has no bearing on whether or not the search is unlawful.

 

Actually, as I understand it, if you give him permission, it is lawful, even if you later (after the search is done) change your mind. If an officer asks to search my car and I say "Sure, no problem" and they find a bloody knife and 5 lb of coke in the back seat, that evidence is admissible in court.

 

they have to justify the search, not the result of the search

 

Well, if they can justify the search (and the law is the only standard I can see using it), then it's a legitimate search and doesn't need to be backed by the police.

 

They are the police, they only need backing by the force if someone says that their search is unlawful.

you will always have 2 sides, one arguing that the police are abusing their authority, and the other saying, your a scumbag and I need the evidence to lock you up.

 

Thus the Rule of Law being the standard. If a search warrant was properly obtained and executed, it doesn't matter who claims it was wrong; it was, in fact, right. If the search warrant was improperly obtained or executed, it was not a proper search, no matter who claims it was. If the search is supported by probable cause, then that's something more sticky, but still a Judge makes the determination, not the police.

That way, they need more backing than the force, they need the backing of fact and evidence.

 

The IPCC is in place to protect the people against officers who abuse their position.
In the UK the police are a very governed entity, potential officers are heavily vetted and scrutinized even before the interview and competency assessment, then have a fitness and security check followed by 3 months of basic training and then 2 years of on the job training.
Being a police officer is a desireable job, most officers value their job and act in a manner befitting their status.

 

IPCC? I guess that's like the Police Affairs group in the UK? Here in the US, such a group may be internal (a seperate group of police monitoring and investigating police) or external (a board of civilians who oversees and investigates). What's it like in the UK?

 

IPCC: independent police complaints commission.

The are an over funded rediculous organisation which are paid to investigate everything.... and I mean everything.

If a car being pursued by police crashes but trying to take a corner at 90mph, they investigate if the police could have done more to prevent it.

If a person who throws punchs at an officer gets CS'ed they investigate it.

If a man who is clearly pissed (and has a history of alcohol abuse) and causing issues at a police barricade at a certain riot gets pushed by an officer and falls like a sack of sh!t and later dies of a clearly alcohol related heart attack while the police battle to save his life because the ambulance cant get through the baying mob who are throwing stones and bottles at the officers. The IPCC bring charges against the officer who pushed him.

Its a joke.

 

Well, that's the nature of the beast. If you have a group within the police, you're asking the police to monitor themselves (always risky), whereas if you have a group outside the police:

1.) they don't understand the police perspective and the realities of the situation.

2.) you are essentally paying them to attack the police.

3.) the organization is bound to be targeted by anti-police groups and individuals, thus biasing them.