To address the problems in this issue, it is necessary to first understand the constitutional protections that do exist to dater police from coercing suspects during questionings. We used technical distinction to design more urbane methods of coaxing suspects into speaking. We talk with the boy politely and try to get answer from him. Arguably, the pressure to talk oneself out of trouble is the most influential in a pre-arrest interrogation, many of which occur in noncustodial settings since the individual can still safe release if he can convince the officer of his innocence. In sum, we will have combined the warnings into our interrogation tactics in a way that proves most advantageous to us, not to a suspect's rights.
Analysis of issues in the motion to suppress. Argument a) The police relied on the information provided by CRI-2 to form the ground for an affidavit seeking to obtain a search warrant. The information from CRI-2 was not credible and could not be independently be relied upon or verified. In Aguilar v. Texas, it was held that “an affidavit based solely on the hearsay report of an unidentified informant must set forth "some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant was truthful and acting in good faith”. In this case, there was no information availed to the magistrate so as to make independent and reliable conclusion as to the prudence of the unidentified police informant.
INTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISM The internal mechanism for holding particular police officers accountable for their actions are determined in the police act of 1861, the state governments police acts and in rules and regulations which are laid down in state police manuals. The police act 1861, authorities which are senior police officers of the rank of superintendent of police, they are appointed to impose one or more of the other punishments, including (a) fine not exceeding one month’s pay (b) confinement to quarter not exceeding 15 days, (c) deprivation of good conduct payment, and (d) removal from any rank of distinction or special emolument. Giving major punishments to suspected police personnel is tough task and takes time because the procedure of conducting, departmental inquiry is highly explained, and time consuming, even if the charges have been proved, the guilty police officer can and generally go to the court against the finding and punishment imposed. Unfortunately, the authority of police agencies in India had destroyed time by political interference, result in loss of discipline in the force and the progress of a tendency at differentlevels within the police to acquire outside patronage for rewards and to be covered against punishment. This is one of the major reasons for the
People have an onerous responsibility to report whenever any criminal act is committed in their area and the police is expected to swing into action without losing any time. It is a small percentage of the crimes committed which are actually reported to the police; most of the cases go un-noticed or are not reported at all. Lodging First Information Report (FIR) is a citizen’s fundamental right against any criminal offence. In fact, it is the first requirement of law to be completed for initiating criminal proceedings against any criminal offender. The police is duty bound to register the complaint of an aggrieved person.
Salmond standing opposed to Winfield opines that there is no “law of tort” (meaning no specific principle of establishing tortious liability) but merely “law of torts”. What he meant to say is that the law of torts consists of a number of specific rules prohibiting certain well-defined harmful acts prohibited by Common Law. This means that there is a certain list of commissions and omissions of acts which under specific situations are actionable in a court of law. Hence according to Salmond, people are only allowed to file a case against that specific act or omission which comes within one of these recognized categories. Like law recognizes specific acts like theft, forgery, dacoity, murder, rape and etc.
Though, no study has successfully established a description that summaries what is considered to be the “right” amount of force seeing as the word “force” caters differently to every individual. To comprehend the varied classifications for the use of force, it is important to recognize the circumstances of the act, reasoning behind the act, and methods to decrease this force; many factors come into play when an officer decides to use force such as, is the use of force justified, has the officer been properly trained to use force, or if the department be held liable if the force is used improperly (Wittie, 2011, 17). This paper will illustrate ways in which police practice their authority, use of force model, and discriminatory treatment towards minority groups to project excessive force amongst their interaction with
4.) Violation of the personal safety protective order: First and foremost, it must have a clear recognition that the personal safety protective order will not be ineffective and enforceable for the respondent refuses to accept. If the respondent refuses to accept the habeas corpus, the indemnity may be taken. Sichuan's first personal protection order is made in this case, the respondent refused to accept the habeas corpus and did not answer the phone. Finally, the court placed the habeas corpus on the door and stated in the court's "service receipt" that it had been delivered to the respondent's home and the respondent refused to open the door.
The office bearer is required to keep this information private and must not disclose it even when he no more holds office. • Falsification and forgery (FCE Art. 17): This clause states absolute prohibition on forgery or falsification. Their ethics penalise falsification and forgery even if the consequence is of no harm or the matter falsified or forged is very trivial. • Duty of disclosure, cooperation and reporting (FCE Art.
Discretion is an official action taken by a police officer or any other agent of criminal justice in whereby they use their individual judgement to decide the course of action suitable for an occurring incident. In criminal justice, an officer considers the totality of circumstances before reaching on a decision to either take legal action or not against an individual. And to what extend the and kind of action will be take (Griffiths, 2013: 122), for instance; warning or arresting the individual. Furthermore, discretion is the privilege or permission granted to officers to use their own judgement to make practical decisions. However there are also attached constraints to this.
This is a case in which Parliament has provided for the entry of a conviction and passing of sentence but has made no valid law for the measure of sentence. A similar situation arose in Soon Kim Seng v Public Prosecutor  2 MLJ 107. He appealed on the ground that the legislation had not provided for any ﬁne or punishment for the possession of a duplicating contrivance. Chang Min Tat J, in allowing the appeal held, with regret, that Parliament had failed to provide a punishment for the offence in question. Here, similar to the first case, Parliament has said that the appellant shall not, by reason of his age, receive the capital punishment but has made no valid law conferring power upon the courts to impose some other sentence.