Running Head: CIVIL RIGHTS IN PRACTICE
Civil rights in practice
The police officers have the right to stop to any body and do a search of the person suspected and the car based on reasonable grounds of carrying drugs, weapons, stolen goods and items to aid in crime. The police officer has to have a good reason for undertaking the search and has to give a reason to the person suspected. In this case, the police officers did not offer any information as to why they were undertaking the search but handled Andrew Graham with force (Findlaw, 2012). As the search is underway, the police officers are meant to have offered the Andrew a record for the search which was not the case (Rights, Conducting the search, 2012; rights, 2012). After a complete a complete search no document providing the details about the search was issued to the client.
At the police station, the officers were required by law to have informed Andrew that he was under arrest and the reason behind his arrest. Andrew was however, ruffed up and thrown in the cells with no knowledge as to why he was in the cells. This is an infringement of the client to freedom and information (Meade, 12 JANUARY 2010). The client was not accorded the right to proper health by being denied his insulin; he was kept in the cells for several hours infringing the codes of practice of stopping and detaining which requires one to be detained for reasonable time (Rights, Stopping and detaining, 2012; Travis, 12 January 2010). He was later undertaken through an interviewed that was not recorded.
As an award to the damages caused due to the unlawful stop, search and arrest, continued imprisonment and the use of force, the client is expected to be rewarded in the range of £ 30, 000.
The police having noted that they infringed on the client, they offer the client £ 2,000. The clients has the prospect of being awarded more than the quoted amount considering that apart from the unlawful search, use of force, unlawful keeping in the cells and no offer of information, the client also suffered health wise by being denied insulin and suffered health wise. This was after the client making requests for the insulin and, as a necessity for all diabetic persons, the need to eat, and the client was not offered the insulin and food, the client later fainted.
The advantages of accepting the award offered by the police is that the client would have been rightfully compensated for the infringements suffered. The disadvantage is that the client been lowly compensated for a lot of infringements suffered in the hands of the police, considering that several laws were breached. The advantage of refusing a police award is that the client has a better chance to be offered a higher award considering the strong basis of argument that he has. The police men broke several civil rights of liberties under the United Kingdom law (Crysta, 15 July 2010). On the other hand, the client has the ability of getting a negative feedback by refusing the award ordered by the police. This has the implication of the police refusing to offer an additional award and decide to take the client on in court of law, which has the ability of resulting to loss of the award completely.
Holistically, the client has a realistic chance of success based on the civil rights laws which tends to protect the person, in this case Andrew, from being denied his rights. The Police on the other hand have accepted to having committed a faulty mistake by denying the client several of his rights. They are hence supposed, after issuing a public apology to Andrew, meant to compensate him for the damages incurred in process of the stop, search and arrest.
Bibliography
Crysta, G. (15 July 2010). Civil Liberties or Civil Rights. Civil Rights Movement.
Findlaw. (2012). Illegal Search and Seizure FAQs. Criminal Rights.
Meade, G. (12 JANUARY 2010). Police stop and search powers ruled illegal. The Independent.
Rights, Y. (2012). Conducting the search. The Liberty Guide to Human Rights.
Rights, Y. (2012). Police powers to stop and search persons and vehicles (without arrest). The Liberty Guides to human Rights.
Rights, Y. (2012). Stopping and detaining. The Liberty Guides to Human Rights.
Travis, A. (12 January 2010). Stop and search powers illegal. The Guardian.
