Part I: Scenarios

Scenario One

1. Constitutional Rights and Legal issues

In this scenario, Officer Smith responds to a call of gunshots being heard at 2 a.m. in the neighborhood where security is usually a problem. In this case, the noisy shots at such in the night shows that whoever is doing so is committing a crime of peace disruption. On reporting to where the scene was taking place, it is realized that they were a group of teens disrupting peace in the community. Based on the constitutional rights and legal issues, offenders disrupting peace may be judged face a jail term, fines, or any other form of sentencing such as community service (Sellars, 2016). In this regard, police officers confirmed that the violators were teens. Therefore, constitution and legal approaches for sentencing teens can be applied if they are captured. For example, they can be taken to juvenile court so that they can be subjected to juvenile terms of sentencing.

1. Emerging Factors or Information that could alter the Course of Action

In the case of this scenario, other factors may arise that might affect the course of action by the police officers. Regarding the laid down constitutional laws, law violators should be punished in case they run away from their police.  Usual punishments include fines or a jail term of about one year. Since the offenders in this scenario ran away, they are likely to undergo this punishment. Another aspect that may worsen their sentence is the possession of illegal weapons. Based on the department of police laws, possession of firearms illegally attracts a punishment of two years imprisonment or an instant fine. Thus, the offenders may be victims of this punishment since they disrupted peace by shooting aimlessly using firearms. Still, the fact that they were teens indicates that their sentence will be ruled out by a juvenile court.

Scenario Two

1. Constitutional Rights and Legal issues

In scenario two, Officer Swan responds to a call that involves issues of domestic violence and opts to go with other police officers to the scene. On reaching there, both the wife and husband blame each the other of being the cause of the problem. As such, police officers remain confused about who to arrest. According to constitutional rights, police officers are not allowed to arrest a person without having a reason for doing so. Besides, if two people are involved in a fight, the police cannot arrest one person and leave the other without having a valid reason for doing so (Myhill, & Johnson, 2016). Concerning this case, the husband has been arrested before due to mistreating the wife. Therefore, the police should separate at that time by taking the husband with so that he can write a statement concerning the cause of domestic violence. Still, the police should not hold the husband suspect until it is confirmed that he caused the violence.

1. Emerging Factors or Information that could alter the Course of Action

Even though police officers may suspect the husband and arrest him, the wife may end up being the cause of violence. As such, she may escape and make it hard for the police to arrest her. As such, the police will be forced to sign a warrant before resuming the search for her.  On the other hand, if both them opposes the claims of being guilty then they another approach to solving the matter such as negotiation and mediation should be incorporated. Since none of them had been hurt during the violence, they can as well be counselled to avoid domestic violence to avoid possible effects.

Scenario Three

1. Constitutional Rights and Legal issues

Scenario three involves a case where Officer Morrison notices two women dressed like prostitutes, and she is stuck whether to get out of the vehicle and ask them or not. Firstly, police officers have a constitutional right to question any person who is suspected of committing a crime or is about to do so. Therefore, she can go on to inquire for information about them. Besides, the ladies seemed to be strangers in that place. As such, they might be up to committing a crime. Questioning them will be a way of maintaining the security of that place.  Furthermore, prostitution is illegal in almost all countries in the world. Thus, the police officer has a right to inquire whether they are prostitutes or not as this will help prevent them from perpetuating the practice in the area (Shdaimah, 2017).

1. Emerging Factors or Information that could alter the Course of Action

Still, there are factors that may change the course of action for Officer Morrison. Firstly, the two ladies may choose to run away on seeing her come out of the vehicle. In this case, she will be sure that they are suspects, and so she should try to catch them so that they can explain before the court of law what they were after. On the other hand, the officer may end up accusing the ladies falsely. Since the constitution defines the rights of citizens too, the ladies may decide to present the case of false accusation to the court, resulting in the sentence of the police officer for false accusation.

Part Two: Strategies that Could Assist Officers in Their Use of Discretion

Police discretion refers to the freedom that police officers have that allows them to make decisions on whether to arrest a suspect or not. There are those who apply discretion appropriately while others use it to discriminate others. To ensure that police officers use their discretion appropriately, strategies should be put in place to necessitate it. Firstly, professionalism should be encouraged while formulating rules that should be followed while arresting suspects. In this case, police officers will understand that they have a professional role to enhance peace and unity among the citizens (Daly, & Sarre, 2016). For example, the police officer in scenario three discussed above can apply professional by approaching the two ladies in a professional manner so that she can identify their plans. As such, it will be easier for her to determine if they are prostitutes or not.

Another strategy that can be used to promote police discretion is to involve the whole police hierarchy in deciding before judging suspects.  Sometimes police officers at the lowest rank tend to discriminate suspects so as to compensate for the tough orders they receive from above. As such, involving their administrators will promote fairness in making judgments as they will confirm how the other police officers have applied their discretion (Schulenberg, 2015). Lastly, police officers can apply collaborative decision-making before deciding on what to do with the suspects. A police officer may fail to make a decision on what to do for a suspect who is misbehaving. With collaborative decision making, the team can come up with a reliable remedy that will see suspects being subjected to appropriate judgments. For instance, in scenario one discussed above, a single police officer could have decided to shoot the offenders since it was night time and they were running. However, collaborative decision-making could help the team to decide a fair way to capture the suspects without killing them.

Reference

Daly, K., & Sarre, R. (2016). Criminal justice system: Aims and processes. Crime and justice: A guide to criminology, 5.

Myhill, A., & Johnson, K. (2016). Police use of discretion in response to domestic violence. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 16(1), 3-20.

Schulenberg, J. L. (2015). Moving beyond arrest and reconceptualizing police discretion: An investigation into the factors affecting conversation, assistance, and criminal charges. Police Quarterly, 18(3), 244-271.

Sellars, K. (2016). The legacy of the Tokyo dissents on ‘crimes against peace.’ The Crime of Aggression–A Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2016), 113-141.

Shdaimah, C. S. (2017). Prostitution/Human Trafficking Courts: Policy Frontline as Fault Line. Tex. L. Rev. Online, 96, 14.