Abstract
The Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights was created by authorities to shield law
enforcement officers and staff from unofficial inquiries or legal actions that may occur while
they are carrying out their official responsibilities. It is the responsibility of law enforcement
personnel to treat every citizen with dignity and in a fair, firm, and consistent manner. These
same officers also have to answer for their actions during the course of any investigations into
allegations of misconduct. According to citizens' due process rights and Fifth Amendment rights,
this bill grants officers privileges (Crawford, 2002). According to Aitchison (2004), the bill
implements the principles of law enforcement accountability, which mandate that officials
uphold impartial and expert standards of behavior on behalf of both the agency and the law
enforcement officers. The bill guarantees that disciplinary actions taken are within the bounds of
employment and that investigations remain secret until they are concluded.
The Facts
Some law enforcement professionals might think that because other law enforcement
peers judge and preside over the cases, it will be nearly impossible to discipline corrupt officers
involved in or found guilty of felonies in court (Roufa, 2017). But the United States Constitution
gives officers the same protections as it does for citizens, and this bill of rights guarantees a fair
prosecution. Despite not being an amendment, this law enforcement bill of rights is enshrined in
state-by-state constitutional rights. These amendments have an impact on law enforcement
agencies because they provide safeguards against being forced to testify against themselves when
carrying out their official reporting obligations (Schmidt, 2005). During an investigation, they
are shielded from testifying against themselves by the Police Bill of Rights.
Law enforcement officers are hired by Federal and State agencies on a daily basis, and
they are also assigned to new law enforcement positions. An officer's integrity or character may
be tested morally and under extreme stress as their law enforcement career progresses (Roufa,
2017). Sadly, there is a lot of corruption in the field, which has compelled officials to call for
increased police accountability and effective methods of looking into claims of misbehavior.
Legislation statewide stated that officers needed rights and protections under a bill to ensure
those matters are handled justly and fairly, coinciding with the formation of internal investigative
teams by agencies. These laws created an officer protection bill of rights to ensure that officers
are treated fairly and morally. Garrity v. New Jersey and Gardner v. Broderick were the two
Supreme Court decisions that led to legislation establishing a Police Officers Bill of Rights.
These were cases involving misconduct on the part of the officers and violations of officers
Rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Decisions on the Bill
The Police Officers Bill of Rights was founded on the rulings in the cases of Gardsner v.
Broderick and Garrity v. New Jersey. The cases helped clarify the distinction between criminal
and administrative investigations, which benefited the bill. The bill clarified the officer’s
situation when it comes to their employment being the subject of an investigation. Law
enforcement officials standing has a major impact on their capacity to perform their duties The
bill safeguards an officers rights from agents conducting parallel investigations if the agents are
not aware of the administrative goals (Schmit, 2005). The bill safeguards the rights of law
enforcement officers who are being questioned or under investigation by the agency, even in
cases where the officer is facing disciplinary action, suspension, or dismissalat the time of the
interrogation.
Solutions
Whether or not one serves in the public sector, everyone deserves to be treated fairly and have
the freedom to exercise their rights, which is why legislation creating the Police Officer Bill of
Rights was appropriate. Officers should be informed of their Fifth Amendment rights when they
are being questioned, even in situations where misconduct by the officers occurs, as was the case
in the cases of Gardner v. Broderick and Garrity v. New Jersey. Officers should acknowledge to
citizens reading them their Miranda rights that anything they say could be used against them in a
criminal trial. The bill assists law enforcement by preventing administrators from instilling in
officers the fear that they will lose their jobs if they refuse to answer questions.
Conclusion
Many more states must pass the Peace Officers Bill of Rights Guarantee before they can
guarantee officers personal protections. The passage of this bill enhances the performance of law
enforcement personnel while they carry out their duties. Additionally, it increases the agency’s
and the officers conduct expectations. Although officers should be held responsible for their
actions, they should not be the target of agency retaliation (Roufa, 2017). If the officers act
morally, they will be protected from making a mistake brought on by a lack of training.
References
Aitchison, W. (2004). The rights of Law enforcement officers. Labor Relations Information
System.
Crawford, K. A. (2002). Constitutional Rights to Counsel During Interrogation: Comparing
Rights Under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. FBI L. Enforcement Bull., 71, 28
Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273 (1968)
Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967)
Schmidt, W. (2005). Peace Officers Bill of Rights Guarantees: Responding to Union Demands
with a Management Sanctioned Version. Law Enforcement Executive Forum.
Roufa, T. (2017) Police Officer’s Bill of Rights, Criminology Careers.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-police-officers-bill-of-rights-974551
