It is believed that law enforcement officers are reliable defenders of the peace of citizens. People want to know that in trouble, such as, for instance, a robbery or car theft, police will come to their aid and guarantee protection. However, there are situations when officers cross the border of permissible powers, striving to find the criminals and solve the following case. An example of this is the United States Supreme Court case Monroe v. Pape (1961), which transformed the little-used statute numbered 42 U.S.C. § 1983 into one of the primary civil rights laws.
This lawsuit was commenced because the police officers in Chicago violated the rights of citizens while being on duty. 13 policemen at night broke into the house of the suspect Monroe and searched it, destroying furniture and tearing pillows and mattresses. Then, they took Monroe to the station and interrogated the man for almost ten hours, denying him the opportunity to make a call to the lawyer. Finally, the man was released without charge, explanations, and apologies (Monroe v. Pape, 1961). The complaint filed with the city authorities was dismissed as the law restricting the police officers’ powers in the execution was pretty unclear. Only after filing a claim with the Supreme Court, the illegality of the search and interrogation was proved. Due to the decision of the Court, “now, Section 1983 can be used to sue state and local officials who misused their positions of power to violate constitutional rights” (Linebach & Kovacsiss, 2016, p. 18). Therefore, the violation of rights of Monroe by police officers led to essential changes in legislation regarding restrictions on police powers.
There are several reasons to consider the actions of the police in this dispute illegal. Firstly, since the officers had neither a search warrant nor a documented basis for the arrest of Mr. Monroe, it was a direct violation of his rights (Monroe v. Pape, 1961). Secondly, already then, the law, numbered 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has been passed. It claimed, “every person who, under color of any statute… subjects any citizen… to the deprivation of any rights … shall be liable to the injured party” (Linebach & Kovacsiss, 2016, p. 17). Moreover, they had to provide him with the opportunity to call the lawyer anyway. Finally, police are expected to be a kind of bastion protecting human rights; therefore, when police violate them, it undermines the citizen’s trust in the government (Cuncic, 2021). Thus, officers should not have behaved that way since they had no authority to do so.
It would be wrong to claim there is nothing to serve as an excuse for the police in this case. At that time, it was difficult to sue officials if they violated the citizens’ rights being on duty. The words “every person” in the law were narrowed to the meaning only several individuals but not government entities (Linebach & Kovacsiss, 2016, p. 18). Now, several laws strictly restrict police violence; however, 2% of people who have dealings with the officers still experience threats or use of force every year (Cuncic, 2021). Therefore, when employees were not limited, they could cross the boundaries of permissible powers without even noticing it. It was a problem with the whole system, not with several certain employees. Therefore, although it is not correct to accept the officers’ side in this dispute, it is necessary to consider the peculiarities of legislation of that time.
As for repercussions of the psychological side for the work of law enforcement, sometimes, the police violence is caused by specific of their job, which is not an excuse but one of the explanations. To date, several psychological pieces of research were conducted, which concluded that “traits of antisocial personality disorder may be more prevalent in police officers than the general population” (Cuncic, 2021, para. 9). Every year police employees shoot and kill about 1000 people in the United States, which affects their psyche (Cuncic, 2021). It can be supposed that officers considered Monroe a dangerous criminal, which explains the cruelty on their part. Therefore, when evaluating the work of police, one should always consider the psychological component of this profession.
The case Monroe v. Pape became resonant in the history of the development of American law, leading to a clear establishment of the boundaries of police powers in the execution. Although the behavior of the police was undoubtedly unlawful, it was not only their fault but the entire system. Now, in the case of violation of the citizens’ rights by the police, officers can be removed, dismissed, and most importantly, sued.
References
Cuncic, A. (2021). The psychology behind police brutality. Verywell Mind.
Linebach, J. & Kovacsiss, L. M. (2016). Psychology in the justice system. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961). Web.