Chapter 4 of discusses police civil liability while on the job. InPsychology in the Justice System
light of Monroe v. Pape, what psychological research, data, law, or theory can be used to support
or oppose law enforcement officers in a legal dispute? Explain the repercussions of that
psychological information for law enforcement in detail.
Submit your Discussion Board Forum 2 Thread by 11:59 p.m (ET) on Sunday.
Police officers are awarded substantial power however, the constitution and various laws
and statutes place limits on the use of their power. There have been cases where law enforcement
has misused the power they have been granted. The case of Monroe v. Pape confirmed the right
of an individual to sue police officers for the violation of civil rights (Linebach & Kovacsiss,
2016).
Monroe claimed his constitutional rights had been violated when 13 police officers
entered and searched his home without a search warrant. Monroe was brought to the police
station and interrogated for 10 hours and when he asked to call his attorney he was denied.
Monroe brought a complaint against the individual police officers and the city of Chicago under
42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The case eventually made it to the Supreme Court where the court found
in an 8-1 decision that the police officers conducted an unreasonable search and seizure and that
the police could be held liable individually under the Civil Rights Act. However, the court found
that the city could not be held liable under the Civil Rights Act. This ruling is significant as it
upheld the rights of individuals to file for compensation for abuses of their civil rights by state or
local government authorities (Monroe v. Pape, 1961).
When discussing the potential for legal disputes against law enforcement officials it is
important to include qualified immunity in the discussion. Police officers are immune from
lawsuits for the performance of their jobs unless the officer demonstrates unlawful conduct.
Officers are entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable officer would not have known that
their conduct violated clearly established law (Dawson, 2016). This protects officers from
individuals who experience typical police interaction from lawsuits. It is only when a police
officer willfully violates an individual’s constitutional rights that the officer can be sued.
Additionally, when a case against a law enforcement officer is brought the burden of proof lies
