Police Authority and Practices

Abstract

Law enforcement requires a sensitive and wise discretion in police decisions whether or not to invoke the criminal process when law violators are uncovered. As an administrative and moral necessity, the policeman informally judges and settles more cases than he takes to court. There are many rules of law limiting the power of arrest and impos ing duties on police officers after arrests are made. Arrests with and without warrant raise constitutional questions as to probable cause and reasonable cause respectively. After ar rest, appearance before a magistrate must follow without un necessary or unreasonable delay, requirements variously de fined by the different jurisdictions. Police practices sometimes depart from prevailing rules of arrest, and the courts must exer cise particular vigilance, especially in such matters involving individual liberties as search and seizure, wire tapping and eavesdropping, use of informers, interrogation of suspects, and the like. Generally, the federal courts tend to be stricter than the state courts about the admissibility of evidence, giving rise to wide divergencies and ambiguities. Technological sophisti cation has increased in scope and reliability the means of ob taining evidence. In the use of these techniques, controls must be exercised to protect individual and other democratic guaran tees at the same time that civil order is maintained.—Ed.