Case Study: Officer Bill of Rights

Case Study: Officer Bill of Rights
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date
Case Study: Officer Bill of Rights
A police career is challenging and sometimes dangerous. Police departments form part of the city and state governments. Police officers are tasked with maintaining law and order. They do this by investigating crime, cross-examining suspects, and maintaining detailed notes to be used for prosecution. The dangers associated with the job can lead to stress. Some police officers are injured in the line of duty, with others dying. While police officers maintain law and order, they are not immune to the provisions of the law. Some officers find themselves in investigations by the agencies that employ them. The “Police Officers’ Bill of Rights” bill (POBR) shows the basic rights and protections that the government should accord to police officers when subjected to investigation and discipline. Understanding POBR is critical in demonstrating how officers suspected of engaging in criminal activities should be interrogated.
Facts
Congressman Mario Biaggi sponsored POBR in 1971-1972. Biaggi had served in the police service for 23 years, where he was wounded ten times in the line of duty. He advocated for police officer safety and occupational rights while serving in Congress (Schmidt, 2005). Although the Senate passed the bill in 1991, the House’s session ended before voting. Police unions did not wait for the relevant authorities to adopt the police bill of rights. Instead, they continued pushing states to pass such bills. So far, 17 states and one province have enacted a bill of rights laws. Henceforth, at least ten states have attempted to come up with POBR. No harmony exists on the state PORB provisions. Different states have different requirements. Some rights and prohibitions in some states are not included in others. Therefore, the adaptations of POBR are voluntary, and states are free to identify the provisions that work for them.
Decision
POBR offers officers the right to interrogation. An interview or interrogation should be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably when the officer is on duty or during normal working hours. There are exemptions where the investigation is serious, and it demands otherwise. The interrogation takes place during off-duty time (Schmidt, 2005). The public officer is entitled to compensation for the off-duty time. The officer under investigation must be informed of the interview and the officer’s details undertaking the interrogation. The decision to protect police offers under interrogation is appropriate because it accords them with the dignity they deserve before they are convicted or r...