In Duckworth, the Supreme Court held that a police officer’s use of a pepper spray can be considered unconstitutional because it blinded innocent children. Today, Pepper Spray is not an uncommon sight in communities, but in Duckworth these children were not aware that a chemical was being used to prevent them from entering a house.
Today, many children are put in Protective Custody after being picked up for disruptive behavior. This can include being placed in the lapater or restrained by arms and legs. After several minutes of this, the child will usually stop crying and just stays quiet.
Protective Custody is typically used on very young children as they are unable to articulate their needs or tell the guard what they want. In these cases, going into the home is extremely dangerous and unnecessary.
Protective Custody is typically used on very young children as they are unable to communicate or tell the guard what they want.
Must make a good faith effort to determine if a suspect is armed
The police must make a good faith effort to determine if a person they suspect is armed and dangerous. This means that they must not just assume that someone is armed and dangerous simply because they look like one.
This is referred to as the “armed person” thresh holding rule. The idea is that even though the police may think someone is armed, they should still have a chance to determine if this person is safe or not before assuming lethal force is necessary.
The “armed person” thresh holding rule was put in place so that people who were being arrested would not just run away or attack the cops in order to get out of being arrested. By having the rule in place, it ensures that people are being held accountable for their actions while under arrest.
There are several reasons why the police must make a good faith effort to determine if a suspect is armed.
May not base the level of force used on the possibility of a lawsuit
In most cases, the police do not use excessive force when they are dealing with civilians. However, there are times when the police need to use force to prevent or deter serious harm or damage to property or persons.
When these situations arise, civilians must be careful about how much force they use against the police. If you feel that the police have used too much force against you, it is important to contact a personal injury lawyer as soon as possible.
A personal injury lawyer can assess whether a person was actually injured in what incident and if so, whether it was serious enough to let a judge order an increase in police force.
The lawyer can determine if an increase in police force would amount to excessive force and if so, file a petition with the courts for an increase in power. Once this is done, the additional power can be used or declined on by the officers themselves.
Must take steps to control the situation and reduce harm
In a case where a police officer responded to a deadly shooting scene, the officer
article determined that he must have put his life in danger by entering the home. The
officer felt guilty because he thought that his training and years of experience meant
asset situation, they are trained and experienced in how to control the situation and reduce harm. This includes being able to use force if needed.
However, in this case where the armed robber was shot and killed by the police officer, there was some doubt about whether or not the police had used reasonable force. This is why this case is important to look at.
During an emergency response, many things have to be done quickly. If one of those things includes using force, then you have to take steps to control the situation and reduce harm.
Must initially communicate their intent to arrest before taking action
Until 1988, most codes of police procedure stated that once an individual was
in custody, the officer must immediately communicate his or her intent to arrest with a
gesture, such as placing their hand on the person’s shoulder or touching the person lightly on
the shoulder. This is called verbal confirmation.
In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled in Duckworth v. Eagan that this confirmation did not have to be done verbally. It can be done non-verbally, such as by placing the fingers of one hand together and then placing the other hand across the chest. This is called non-verbal indicators of restraint.
Non-verbal indicators of restraint are useful when a police officer does not feel like talking but still wants to confirm their arrest with a gesture. By having these signs, they still indicate their arrest to someone else.