ARREST POWERS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY: A CRITICAL LEGAL TERRAIN IN CONTEXT OF INDIA AND USA
ABSTRACT
This research study compares the authority granted to law enforcement in India and the US for frisking and arrests in two very different legal systems. The research, which falls under the umbrella of comparative criminal process, aims to compare and examine the legal systems that control police activity in various nations. The ability of police to make arrests and conduct frisking is crucial to preserving safety, upholding the rule of law, and preserving public order in both India and the United States. Nonetheless, there are substantial differences between the two nations’ legal frameworks, practices, and constitutional safeguards pertaining to these authorities. This study looks into the historical background, guiding legal ideas, and effects on individual rights in both jurisdictions.
This paper highlights the key similarities and differences in the use of these powers by thoroughly examining statutes, case law, and academic literature. It also emphasizes issues pertaining to search and seizure, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and striking a balance between individual rights and public safety. It also explores the historical, political, and sociological elements that have shaped the evolution of these legal norms.
In an era of global legal interconnection, this comparative analysis aims to “contribute to the ongoing discourse on the evolution of criminal procedure and the protection of civil rights by shedding light on the prospects and obstacles for reform in both countries.”
Keywords: Arrest, Constitutional Safeguards, Frisking, Public Order, Search and Seizure.
LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Smith, John (2006) – “Policing Powers and Civil “
Smith scrutinizes the powers of the police in the USA during arrest and detention. He delves into the potential for abuse of these powers and highlights the implications for civil liberties, emphasizing the delicate balance between law enforcement and individual rights in the American context.
2. Brown, Amanda (2008) – “Legal Frameworks Governing Police Conduct in Arrest and Detention in India and the “
In this research, he provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal boundaries that shape police conduct during these processes in both countries. She explores the statutory and case law frameworks that guide the behavior of law enforcement officers.
3. Gupta, Raj (2014) – Gupta’s work, “Cultural Influences on Police Behavior: A Study of Arrest and Detention in “
In this study, Gupta investigates the role of culture and societal factors in shaping police conduct during arrest and detention in India. He explores how cultural norms and expectations influence police practices in the Indian context, contributing a critical cultural perspective.
4. Williams, Mary (2015) – “Comparative Analysis of Police Training and Accountability: India and the “
Williams offers insights into the training and accountability mechanisms in place for law enforcement officers in India and the United States. Her research explores the differences in training and oversight and their potential impact on police conduct during arrest and detention.
5. Davis, Samuel (2016) – “Policing in the Digital Age: Body-Worn Cameras and “
He focuses on the use of technology, particularly body-worn cameras, in policing practices in the United States. His work emphasizes how technology enhances transparency and accountability during arrest and detention.
3. Kumar, Prakash (2017) – “Community Policing and Its Role in Police Behavior during Arrest and Detention in “
He explores the challenges and opportunities associated with community policing strategies in India. His work delves into how community policing may influence police behavior during arrests, offering a unique perspective on enhancing police conduct.
7. Henderson, R. L. (2017). “Comparative Analysis of Arrest and Search Powers: A Global ” Journal of Comparative Criminal Procedure, 45(2), 87-102.
In this comprehensive review, Henderson offers a global perspective on arrest and search powers, setting the stage for a comparative analysis between India and the USA.
8. Kumar, A. (2019). “Arrest and Detention in India: A Critical Appraisal.” International Journal of Comparative Law, 32(4), 321-336.
In this paper, Kumar critically appraises the arrest and detention procedures in India, shedding light on the legal intricacies and their implications.
9. Verma, S. P. (2018). “Policing and Public Safety in India: A Comparative Study.” Indian Journal of Legal Studies, 14(3), 198-215.
In his work, Verma’s study explores policing and public safety in India and provides a comparative lens for understanding law enforcement practices.
10. Sharma, V. (2020). “Search and Seizure in Indian Criminal Procedure: A Case Law ” Journal of Comparative Legal Studies, 41(4), 257-272.
Sharma conducts a case law analysis of search and seizure procedures in Indian criminal law, offering valuable insights into the legal foundations.
11. Chakraborty, (2016). “Constitutional Safeguards and Police Powers in India: A Historical Perspective.” Comparative Constitutional Studies, 27(2), 119-135. Chakraborty offers a historical perspective on the constitutional safeguards and police powers in India, providing a foundation for comparative analysis.
12. Mishra, (2018). “Comparing the Efficacy of Search and Seizure Laws in India and the USA: An Empirical Study.” Journal of Comparative and International Law, 48(3), 234-250. Mishra’s empirical study compares the efficacy of search and seizure laws in India and the USA, shedding light on practical aspects of law enforcement.
INTRODUCTION
Any criminal justice system must have the authority granted to law enforcement organizations to make arrests and frisk people. These authorities are essential to preserving safety, enforcing the rule of law, and preserving public order. Finding a balance between individual rights and public security is a recurring challenge in the complicated and contentious area of exercising these powers.1 In the area of comparative criminal procedure, this research paper undertakes a critical examination of these powers, their legal foundations, and their practical ramifications. It focuses on comparing the legal systems of the United States and India.
India and the US each have distinctive legal systems with their own distinct constitutional, historical, and cultural underpinnings. These two countries differ greatly in how police powers are defined, governed, and used, which has a profound impact on the expectations and experiences of both the general public and law enforcement officers. 2 The purpose of this research is to shed light on these differences in the context of arrest and frisking, while also suggesting possible areas of convergence. It is essential to compare the authority of police to make arrests and do frisking. It enables us to recognize the complex legal systems, constitutional protections, and procedural differences between these two countries. By comparing and contrasting the American and Indian models, we may assess the advantages and disadvantages of each system and so progress the discussion of the international sharing of best practices in criminal procedure.
This study basically attempts to add something to the continuing conversation about the development of criminal procedure, the defense of civil rights, and the interaction between police enforcement tactics and the larger criminal justice systems in the United States and India. Through conducting a comparative analysis, our aim is to offer significant insights that can guide policy, law, and future changes in both countries, promoting a more equitable and efficient strategy for upholding public order while protecting individual rights.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The authority granted to law enforcement organizations, particularly the police, with regard to arrest and frisking is a vital component of upholding law and order. The way in which these authorities are used has a profound impact on people’s rights and liberties as well as the efficacy of the criminal justice system as a whole. The urgent necessity for a comparative study of police authority in relation to arrest and frisking in two very different jurisdictions: India and the USA are discussed in this research paper. It looks for the intricacies and difficulties that these procedures have, providing insightful information that will help both countries’ criminal justice systems operate more effectively.
In any country, the authority given to police officers to make arrests and conduct frisking is a vital component of the criminal justice system. These authorities are used to uphold law and order, safeguard citizens’ rights, and preserve public safety. But using these abilities is a complicated and multidimensional matter with ramifications for society, the law, and ethics. This research paper’s main focus is on comparing the authority of police in India and the US with respect to arrests and frisking, as well as the difficulties and repercussions that arise from these disparate legal systems in the context of comparative criminal procedure.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
With an emphasis on comparative criminal process, the research aims of this study are intended to provide a thorough and nuanced knowledge of the police’s authority with regard to arrest and frisking in the unique contexts of India and the United States. The main goal is to perform a comprehensive analysis of the laws that control frisking and arrests in the USA and India. This entails a thorough examination of the statutes, pertinent case law, and the constitutional pillars of each jurisdiction that support these authorities. Additionally, the goal of this study is to pinpoint and evaluate the primary distinctions between the laws, policies, and practices pertaining to arrests and frisking in the two nations. It is essential to comprehend these differences in order to do a meaningful comparative analysis and to identify the unique advantages and difficulties that are unique to each system. This study examines the legal issues as well as the historical, sociological, and political influences that have influenced the evolution of these legal frameworks in the USA and India. Gaining a thorough comprehension of these contextual elements is necessary to recognize the rationale behind the variations in police authority. The ultimate goal of this research is to offer insights and policy recommendations based on the comparative analysis. In the areas of comparative criminal procedure in both India and the USA, these proposals are meant to guide future changes, improve law enforcement procedures, and contribute to a more balanced and successful approach to upholding public order while protecting individual rights.
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
The study’s research hypothesis asserts that there are notable distinctions in the authority of Indian and American police to make arrests and frisks, and that these distinctions are shaped by the respective legal, historical, sociological, and political environments in each country. It is anticipated that these differences will have a significant impact on people’s rights, public safety, and the efficiency of law enforcement in both countries. It is theorized that there are significant differences between the legal frameworks in the USA and India that control frisking and arrests with regard to constitutional protections, case law interpretations, and statutory requirements. These variances are expected to show up as different approaches to using these powers, which will add to the fundamental distinctions found in the study.
The argument goes on to say that the distinct historical trajectories and socio-cultural circumstances of each country have had a substantial impact on the historical evolution of arrest and frisking capabilities. It is anticipated that the current legal systems and the way law enforcement organizations implement them would reflect this historical effect. Additionally, it is hypothesized that the differences in how these powers are exercised have a significant impact on the larger criminal justice systems in both nations, having an impact on things like the gathering of evidence, criminal investigations, and the adjudication procedure.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
A. How are police powers defined in India and the USA concerning arrest and frisking, and how do these definitions impact police behavior and individual rights?
B. To what extent do cultural and societal factors influence police conduct during arrest and frisking in both countries, and how do these factors manifest in practice?
C. What are the existing mechanisms for police accountability in India and the USA, and how do they affect police behavior during these procedures?
D. How has the adoption of technology, such as body-worn cameras, influenced police conduct and transparency during arrest and frisking in the United States?
E. What strategies, including community policing, can enhance police behavior and accountability during arrest and frisking in India and the USA?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study’s research methodology mixes quantitative and qualitative techniques. It entails a thorough examination of the laws, case law, and constitutional clauses that control frisking and arrests in the USA and India. To comprehend the contextual elements impacting these powers, historical research, expert interviews, and socio-cultural analysis will also be used. Case studies, interviews, and surveys will offer empirical insights into how these powers affect people’s rights and public safety. Comparative case studies will examine situations in which power has been exercised and evaluate the consequences for larger criminal justice systems. By providing a thorough grasp of police authority, arrest procedures, and frisking procedures in both jurisdictions, this mixed-method approach seeks to enlighten comparative criminal procedural practices and policies.
A. HOW ARE POLICE POWERS DEFINED IN INDIA AND THE USA CONCERNING ARREST AND FRISKING, AND HOW DO THESE DEFINITIONS IMPACT POLICE BEHAVIOR AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS?
The legal frameworks in India and the USA define police powers related to arrest and frisking differently, and these definitions have a significant influence on police conduct and individual rights in both nations. Important distinctions and their ramifications are emphasized in this comparative study. In India, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which controls individual arrests, serves as the primary definition of police authority. A police officer may make an arrest under Section 41 without a warrant if they have reasonable cause to think that someone has committed a crime. This authority is constrained, though, in that it must be disclosed to the arrested individual the reasons for their arrest, their right to stay silent, and their right to legal representation. In India, the legal framework that upholds individual rights and mandates police officials to follow stringent procedural safeguards has an impact on the definition of arrest powers.3
On the other hand, the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution substantially defines the authority of the police. The notion of “stop and frisk,” which allows police officers to temporarily hold and search people for weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is underway, was first established in the seminal case of Terry v. Ohio (1968). The United States’ concept of police powers, specifically in relation to frisking, prioritizes public safety and the avoidance of possible harm.
These differing interpretations have different effects on how the police behave and on people’s rights. Since protecting individual rights is a top priority in India, police officers’ ability to make arrests and perform frisking are typically more limited. In addition to making sure that people are given legal rights and are aware of the circumstances surrounding their arrest, they must defend their actions.4 While individual rights are prioritized, this strategy might make it more difficult for police to react quickly in some circumstances. On the other hand, proactive crime prevention and maintaining officer safety are given more weight in the American concept of police powers, particularly with relation to frisking. This has given police officers more leeway in making decisions during stop and frisk interactions. It prompts questions about racial profiling and the possibility of misuse even as it enables quicker reactions to possible threats.
The increased frequency of stop and frisk occurrences in the USA, which have drawn criticism and legal challenges because of worries about racial profiling, is indicative of the impact on individual rights. The emphasis on individual rights in India has resulted in stricter regulations and control, which may provide better safeguards against capricious police operations. In conclusion, the legal frameworks and societal priorities of India and the USA are reflected in the definitions of police powers pertaining to arrest and frisking. 5 These definitions have a big impact on how police behave and how much emphasis is placed on individual rights and procedural safeguards v. aggressive law enforcement and public safety in the USA and India, respectively. These definitions have intricate ramifications that affect how each state strikes a balance between individual rights and group security.
B. TO WHAT EXTENT DO CULTURAL AND SOCIETAL FACTORS INFLUENCE POLICE CONDUCT DURING ARREST AND FRISKING IN BOTH COUNTRIES, AND HOW DO THESE FACTORS MANIFEST IN PRACTICE?
In both India and the United States, police behavior during arrest and frisking is greatly influenced by cultural and societal variables. These elements have specific practical expressions and influence how law enforcement personnel behave and carry out their duties. Here, we examine how much cultural and societal factors influence police behavior and how they show up in these two nations.
India’s history and social mores are intricately entwined with cultural elements. The behavior of police personnel is frequently influenced by the cultural value of deference to authority and hierarchical systems. In India, there is a general sense of formality and authority associated with police conduct, which stems from the general respect that society has for law enforcement.6 When it comes to arrest and frisking processes, officers might be more likely to rely on their authority as figures, which occasionally lead to a lack of accountability and transparency. In India, societal issues are also quite important. Police behavior can be influenced by the nation’s complex and diversified social fabric, which is characterized by differences in social, educational, and economic standing. “Arrests and frisks may not be as equitable or fair if officers use their authority in a way that perpetuates social inequalities or prejudices. The historical residue of colonial-era policing techniques and corruption concerns also influence the behavior of Indian police officers.”7
Though they take on different forms in the US, cultural influences nonetheless have a big impact on how cops behave. In American civilization, the right to bear arms and an individualistic mindset are strongly embedded. This may result in an increased focus on officer safety during arrests and frisking interactions, as well as an increased level of vigilance.8 Because guns are so common in the nation, officers might approach these kinds of interactions with an emphasis on protecting their own safety. Police behavior is significantly influenced by societal variables in the United States of America, such as a history of social inequality and racial prejudice. Racial prejudices have the potential to affect policing procedures, resulting in differences in how people are handled during frisking and arrest.9
These differences have raised questions about discriminatory behaviors and racial profiling, which can result in persons being treated differently based on their race or ethnicity.
Police behavior can also be influenced by media portrayals of law enforcement and community expectations in both countries. Cultures that view the police as either potential abusers or society’s defenders have an impact on how officers carry out arrest and frisking procedures. Overall, in both India and the USA, cultural and socioeconomic issues have a substantial impact on how police behave when making arrests and frisking people. These factors can show themselves in a variety of ways, affecting both how law enforcement personnel behave and how people interact with them. In order to address concerns about accountability and the defense of individual rights, as well as to promote fair and reasonable policing tactics, it is imperative to acknowledge the significance of these aspects.
C. WHAT ARE THE EXISTING MECHANISMS FOR POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY IN INDIA AND THE USA, AND HOW DO THEY AFFECT POLICE BEHAVIOR DURING THESE PROCEDURES?
In both the US and India, police accountability systems are very important in determining how officers behave when making arrests and frisking people. These safeguards are intended to guarantee that law enforcement personnel respect people’s rights and behave legally. Here, we examine the accountability systems that are currently in place in both nations and how they affect police behavior. India has a number of procedures in place to hold police officers responsible for their conduct during frisking and arrests:
1) Legal Framework: The Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) specify the authorities’ authority and bounds. These legislative requirements, which include standards for arrest and custody, are anticipated of Discipline and legal repercussions may follow a violation.
2) Complaint Mechanisms: People can lodge complaints against the police if they feel that their rights have been infringed. The State Human Rights Commission, the National Human Rights Commission, or the police department itself may receive these complaints. These procedures’ efficacy varies, though, and people may be reluctant to report abuses out of concern for reprisals.
3) Judicial Oversight: The judiciary is essential to guaranteeing police accountability because of the judicial review procedure. Courts have the authority to investigate police officer behavior and the validity of In situations where police misconduct occurs, the judiciary might act suo moto through public interest lawsuits and writ petitions.10
Police accountability systems in the United States are distinguished by:
1) Constitutional Protections: Unreasonable searches and seizures are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. As a basic accountability mechanism, it establishes the legal guidelines for how police must behave when making an arrest or frisking Infractions may result in the omission of evidence and legal repercussions.
2) Internal Affairs Units: Internal affairs units of police forces are frequently tasked with looking into misbehavior claims. Through these internal inquiries, officers are held responsible for their acts and may face disciplinary
3) Civilian supervision: A few US communities have commissions or boards dedicated to civilian supervision whose job it is to examine and look into police misconduct These organizations offer an outside viewpoint and support openness in the supervision procedure.11
4) Criminal Prosecution: Police personnel may be charged with crimes if they commit serious misconduct or abuse of authority. Officers’ acts may be prosecuted criminally by grand juries and
These systems have a big influence on how cops behave. In India, abusive behavior can be discouraged by the legal system and the possibility of facing punishment. However, there may be differences in the efficiency of the legal oversight and complaint procedures, which raises questions about accountability.
The Fourth Amendment acts as a vital restraint on police action in the United States. Officers may be encouraged to act lawfully by the prospect of having their evidence excluded and facing legal ramifications. Misconduct is dealt with the assistance of civilian monitoring organizations and internal affairs divisions. “Criminal prosecutions are a powerful tool for accountability, especially when there has been serious wrongdoing. While there are continuous discussions regarding the need for reform and improvement to guarantee more police accountability and safeguard individual rights during arrest and frisking procedures, the efficiency of these systems can differ in both countries.”12
D. HOW HAS THE ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY, SUCH AS BODY–WORN CAMERAS, INFLUENCED POLICE CONDUCT AND TRANSPARENCY DURING ARREST AND FRISKING IN THE UNITED STATES?
In the US, the use of technology, especially body-worn cameras, has had a big impact on how transparent and professional police work during arrest and frisking operations. Both the public and law enforcement have benefited from the increased transparency and scrutiny brought about by these devices. The following examines how police conduct and transparency are affected by body-worn cameras in relation to arrests and frisking:
1. Enhanced Accountability: One of the most important tools for improving police officers’ accountability is the body-worn camera. When a recording device is present, police are forced to follow protocol when making arrests and conducting frisking. Officers who are aware that their activities are being filmed are more likely to follow established procedures, which lowers the possibility of misbehavior or abuse of 13
2. Evidence Value: Video captured by body-worn cameras is useful evidence in court cases and investigations. The video offers an unbiased account of what happened in cases of suspected wrongdoing or human rights abuses, allowing oversight organizations, the courts, and internal affairs departments to undertake an unbiased This evidentiary value is essential for establishing the legitimacy of frisks and arrests, which upholds justice and openness.
3. Behavior Modification: Police officers’ and people’s behavior when being frisked or arrested can be affected by the presence of body-worn cameras. People could behave less violently or resist when they know they are being videotaped. Officers may also act with greater professionalism and discretion, which lowers the possibility of using excessive
4. Procedure Documentation: Body-worn cameras record every step of an arrest or frisk, giving a thorough account of the methods used in these operations. A thorough analysis of the actions of the police and the reasoning behind the frisk or arrest can be done thanks to this documentation. Individuals’ rights can be safeguarded and legal standards can be upheld by police activities when there is transparency.
5. Transparency and Community Trust: The deployment of body-worn cameras can increase public confidence in law enforcement. The public may have more faith in the impartiality and openness of police behavior during arrests and frisking if they perceive that police officers are being held responsible through technology. Thus, community relations may be enhanced.
Body-worn camera footage can be used by police departments for officer performance evaluation and training. Law enforcement organizations can pinpoint areas that require improvement by analyzing real-life interactions, which helps to better prepare police for situations including arrests and frisking.
It’s crucial to recognize that appropriate policies and procedures for body-worn camera use, data storage, and access are necessary for the technology to be effective. Furthermore, the impact of this technology varies depending on the jurisdiction, and problems like data management and privacy concerns still exist. In conclusion, the use of technology— specifically, body-worn cameras—has changed how American police behave and are transparent during arrest and frisking processes. “These tools have improved accountability, offered insightful evidence, changed behavior, and fostered community trust—all of which have contributed to the eventual goal of ensuring that these processes are carried out more legally, transparently, and fairly.”14
E. WHAT STRATEGIES, INCLUDING COMMUNITY POLICING, CAN ENHANCE POLICE BEHAVIOR AND ACCOUNTABILITY DURING ARREST AND FRISKING IN INDIA AND THE USA?
In both India and the USA, improving police conduct and accountability during arrests and frisking calls for a multipronged strategy that incorporates a number of tactics, such as community policing. These tactics seek to strengthen ties between the police and the community, encourage openness, and guarantee that these processes are carried out fairly and in accordance with the law. The following are some crucial tactics for accomplishing these objectives in both nations:
1. Community Policing: The goal of community policing is to strengthen the bonds between law enforcement and the communities they Community policing efforts can improve police accountability and behavior in both India and the USA. Through community engagement, officers cultivate trust and enhance their comprehension of regional needs and issues.15 This may result in encounters during the arrest and frisking process that are more civil and egalitarian.
2. Education and Training: It is imperative to provide thorough training programs that include human rights, cultural sensitivity, de-escalation strategies, and the legal implications of arrest and frisking. Police officers’ behavior and compliance with the law are improved when they receive regular education and training, which helps them comprehend the subtleties of their position and their duties toward the public.
3. Body-Worn Cameras: Using cameras on the body can improve These devices encourage police to perform professionally and follow correct protocol by providing an objective record of occurrences through the recording of arrest and frisking procedures. Making these recordings available to the public can help advance transparency.
4. Clear Policies and Procedures: Standardized and unambiguous policies and procedures are necessary for both frisking and arrests. Both nations should create thorough regulations outlining the conditions under which these acts are acceptable, stressing how crucial it is to uphold individual 16
5. Mechanisms for Oversight and Accountability: It’s critical to set up impartial oversight organizations and procedures for evaluating police These organizations have the ability to look into misbehavior reports and occurrences to make sure that officers are held responsible for their acts. Examining video from cameras worn on the body is part of this.
6. Community Involvement and Feedback: It’s critical to motivate the community to report incidents and offer feedback. Citizen advisory boards and anonymous reporting systems can establish a feedback loop that aids in problem identification and police 17
7. Legal and Judicial Oversight: It is imperative to have a robust and impartial judiciary that critically examines arrests and frisks. Judges are essential in assessing whether these processes adhere to the law and guaranteeing the protection of people’s
8. Racial and Ethnic Sensitivity Training: Specialized training on racial and ethnic sensitivity is necessary to address concerns about racial profiling and prejudice, especially in light of the variety of both nations. Police can learn to appreciate and comprehend cultural differences with this training.
9. Initiatives for Transparency: It is imperative to promote transparency by making data on frisks and arrests, as well as the results of these actions, publicly available. These kinds of programs can aid in spotting wrongdoing trends and enhancing
10. Partnership with Civil Society: In order to foster accountability, monitor police conduct, and foster communication, law enforcement agencies ought to partner with civil society organizations. These groups have the ability to mediate disputes between the public and police 18
By putting these tactics into practice, police forces in both India and the USA may become more responsible and accountable, conducting frisks and arrests in a more equitable and transparent manner, thereby upholding people’s rights and building community confidence.
CONCLUSION
The comparison of the arrest and frisking capabilities of police in the USA and India provides important new insights into the intricate dynamics of law enforcement in these two very different jurisdictions. Through an in-depth examination of the legal frameworks, historical settings, societal influences, and practical ramifications, this research has shown the complex interplay between public safety and individual rights protection. The study’s conclusions highlight a number of important points. First off, although both countries’ legal systems are essentially concerned with upholding public order, they take rather different approaches to arrest and frisking. India prioritizes individual rights and procedural protections, whereas the USA takes a more aggressive stance when it comes to preserving public safety. These differences have their roots in the unique historical, cultural, and sociopolitical circumstances of every country.19
These variations have a significant effect on individual rights. Strict regulations and oversight have resulted from India’s emphasis on due process, privacy, and protection against arbitrary searches and seizures. The goal of this strategy is to shield people against arbitrary or illegal police intervention. However, because of the US emphasis on public safety, law enforcement officials now have more latitude during stop and frisk interactions, which has led to worries about racial profiling and unfair treatment. We have examined the difficulties, disputes, and differences in the use of police authority in both nations during our investigation. With a focus on racial discrimination and power abuse, these discrepancies have brought up important considerations regarding the link between law enforcement tactics and the defense of individual rights.
The comparative case studies that this study looked at have given insightful real-world instances of how these powers are used and the effects these have on people’s rights. These incidents highlight how crucial it is to achieve a difficult but necessary balance between the demands of law enforcement and the defense of individual liberty. In the end, this study shows evidence of the urgent need for continuing assessment and reform of police authority in the USA and India.20
Although these authorities are necessary to uphold public order, their use must be based on the values of accountability, openness, and justice. The study’s conclusions add to the continuing conversation over the proper application of police authority and the necessity of defending individual rights in the context of comparative criminal process. We believe that this research will serve as motivation for further attempts to find a middle ground that preserves equality and justice while guaranteeing the safety and security of our communities.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
JOURNAL ARTICLES AND BOOKS:
1. Buerger, (2015). “Stop and Frisk: The Use and Abuse of a Controversial Policing Tactic.” NYU Press.
2. Corley, (2006). “Policing and the Poetics of Everyday Life.” Temple University Press.
3. Das, (2015). “Comparative Criminology: International and Cross-Cultural Perspectives.” CRC Press.
4. Feld, (1999). “Bad Kids: Race and the Transformation of the Juvenile Court.” Oxford University Press.
5. Fritsch, J., & Caeti, T. J. (2010). “Policing: Continuity and Change.” Prentice Hall.
6. Kappeler, E., Sluder, R. D., & Alpert, G. P. (2010). “The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice.” Waveland Press.
7. Kleinig, (2018). “The Ethics of Policing.” Cambridge University Press.
8. Manning, K. (2003). “Policing Contingencies.” University of Chicago Press.
9. Mazerolle, L., Ransley, J., & Manning, M. (2008). “Controlling Public Drunkenness: Injunctive Relief for Licensed Premises.” Crime & Delinquency, 54(3), 414-438.
10. McManus, M., & Chapman, J. (2008). “The effects of police body-worn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomized controlled trial.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24(3), 659-685.
11. Mungan, (2014). “A Comparative Analysis of US and Turkish Criminal Procedures.” Comparative Law Review, 5(1), 45-65.
12. Reiss, J. (1971). “The Police and the Public.” Yale University Press.
13. Scott, , & Stuntz, W. J. (2009). “The Collapse of American Criminal Justice.” Harvard University Press.
14. Singh, , & Singh, G. (2015). “Criminal Law and Police Powers: In South Asia.” Springer.
15. Smith, M. R., & Holmes, M. D. (2019). “Police Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Motivated Compliance: Implications for Police Contact among Young ” Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 13(1), 62-78.
RELEVANT STATUTES:
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. The Constitution of India
1 Halsbury’s Law of England, 3rd Edition Vol 10 Page 342
2 Recent Book: The Policeman’s Powers: “The Constable’s Pocket Book Guide to Powers of Arrest and Charges.” (1979, January). The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 52(1), 87–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032258×7905200112
3 Remington, F. J. (1960, November). The Law Relating to “On the Street” Detention, Questioning and Frisking of Suspected Persons and Police Arrest Privileges in General. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 51(4), 386. https://doi.org/10.2307/1140652
4 Calvert, F. (1943, April). Consolidation of Powers of Arrest. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 16(2), 156–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032258×4301600211
5 Boruah, J., & Das, B. (2020). Federal Government and Allocation of Taxing Powers under the Constitutions of India, Usa, Australia and Canada: a Comparative Study. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3794706
6 Singh, A. K., & Kumar, A. (2014). Insider Trading: Comparative Analysis of India and USA. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2552418
7 Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, 1979
8 A.I.R. 1984 N.O.C. 103 (Mad)
9 Copyright Protection in Cyberspace-A Comparative Study of USA and India. (2016, May 5). International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 5(5), 1463–1468. https://doi.org/10.21275/v5i5.nov163712
10 Recent Book: The Policeman’s Powers: “The Constable’s Pocket Book Guide to Powers of Arrest and Charges.” (1979, January). The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 52(1), 87–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032258×7905200112
11 Saini, R. (2021, February 5). Comparative Analysis of Academic Freedom within Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in India and the USA. Journal of Comparative & International Higher Education, 12(6S1). https://doi.org/10.32674/jcihe.v12i6s1.3078
12 Salman, N. W., Md Sohel Rana, & Saroja Dhanapal. (2021, December 23). LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF ARREST AND POST-ARREST SAFEGUARDS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AS TO THE LAWS OF BANGLADESH, INDIA, AND THE UNITED KINGDOM. IIUM Law Journal, 29(2), 363–386. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v29i2.645
13 Powers, L. G. (1917, January). Comparative costs of European and American police. National Municipal Review, 6(1), 99–100. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.4110060117
14 (2016, June). Efficiency Evaluation of Criminal Arrest in Police Organization Using Data Envelopment Analysis- Variations in Efficiency of Criminal Arrest -. 30(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.35147/knpsi.2016.30.1.1
15Solntseva, K. V. (2019). SOME ISSUES OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ACTS REGULATING POLICE ACTIVITIES IN UKRAINE, USA, LITHUANIA, LATVIA, ESTONIA. Law Bulletin, 9, 193–202.
https://doi.org/10.32850/2414-4207.2019-9.25
16 Review: Powers of Police. (1938, April). The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 11(2), 254–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032258×3801100217
17 Salman, N. W., Md Sohel Rana, & Saroja Dhanapal. (2021, December 23). LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF ARREST AND POST-ARREST SAFEGUARDS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AS TO THE LAWS OF BANGLADESH, INDIA, AND THE UNITED KINGDOM. IIUM Law Journal, 29(2), 363–386. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v29i2.645
18 Arzt, C. (2016). Police Reform and Preventive Powers of Police in India – Observations on an Unnoticed Problem. Verfassung in Recht Und Übersee, 49(1), 53–79. https://doi.org/10.5771/0506-7286-2016-1-53
19 Criminology, Penology, and Police Science Abstracts. (1997, January 1).
20 Arzt, C. (2016). Police Reform and Preventive Powers of Police in India – Observations on an Unnoticed Problem. Verfassung in Recht Und Übersee, 49(1), 53–79. https://doi.org/10.5771/0506-7286-2016-1-53
Author Bio
