Law Enforcement Case Study

This case is a perfect illustration of the importance of having clear and concise and up to date policies and procedures. It is cases like this that show the benefits of being accredited and helps to bring understand to the very reason the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies standards were developed (CALEA, n.d.).

This case had several areas of concern, many of which could have been avoided by having a policy like we have been speaking about. One of the first issues is the practice of allowing private parties to hire officers, or as the courts stated, they “rented badges.” In this case, to accompany them and assist them in the serving process of civil actions. This is just one of the effects associated to their unwritten policy which has come to be known as the “don’t ask, don’t think policy” (Justia Law, n.d.). In addition to this, the hiring party called all the shots, to include the hours “wee hour surprise takeover” and length of service, which both came into play in this case.

Both officers were armed, in full uniform and driving a marked police vehicle. Although they claimed to remain on-scene in an effort to “keep the peace,” this
They stated that the don’t ask, don’t think policy, meant that the officers were willfully blinding themselves with the rationalization that they were simply there to serve process and keep the peace. They also referred to the group that went to serve the civil papers as a “posse.” Resulting in the courts finding that the officers actively participated in an illegal seizure and massive self-help repossession over the course of hours, with the approval of their supervisor and as part of a regular custom or practice. This was all done without an order, a writ, a warrant, or any statutory authority. As they stated, such actions are precisely the type of unreasonable behavior that the Fourth Amendment