What are the various functions of a police agency? Compare and contrast how these functions differ at the federal, state, and local levels. What would happen if the various functions and roles of policing agencies were limited among communities? What is custodial interrogation? What is the relationship between custodial interrogation and the overall criminal justice system? How can we improve this relationship? There are many functions to a police agency.
Some of the common functions are preventing and controlling conduct and behavior that may be threatening to life and property, helping those in danger of physical harm, and creating and maintaining a feeling of security in communities. Police agencies also can be responsible for helping those who cannot care for themselves, such as those under the influence, the addicted, the mentally ill, and the physically disabled. We entrust police agencies to resolve conflicts and to identify any problems that have the potential to escalate to a higher level.
Police agencies differ depending on their level, whether federal, state, or local. Federal police agencies are in charge of matters that affect an entire country, such as terrorism, and organized crime. State agencies are in charge of maintaining public safety, criminal investigations, and public relations. Local agencies provide routine community patrol, emergency services, record keeping, and detention for adults and juveniles, public information to citizens, and community relations. Federal, state, and local agencies share the same roles and functions.
The difference between the two agencies is that they have certain jurisdictions that affect staffing, funding, support, and operations. If the functions of a police agency were only limited to communities, I believe there would be more crime and issues at hand. Just a handful of local police or community agencies are not equipped to handle certain issues. That is why our nation needs different police agencies to share their support, guidance, and intelligence to work together in solving the crimes of today.
Custodial interrogation, as determined by Miranda v. Arizona, is a situation in which a suspect’s freedom of movement is restricted, even if he or she is not under arrest. If a suspect is arrested for a crime and makes a voluntary statement to an officer, it may still be used against them as evidence in court. As long as the prosecution can prove that the statement was made willingly and not coerced. Additionally, if the police can prove that evidence would have been discovered without the suspect’s help, that information may also be used in court.
During a custodial interrogation, police agencies are not allowed to intimidate or coerce a suspect into answering any questions. If a suspect is bullied into giving statements that may incriminate themselves, the information cannot be used in trial. The relationship between custodial interrogation and the criminal justice system is simple; a suspect has to be read their Miranda rights to be questioned or tried for any reason. Without this, any case can, and will be thrown out.