d. Sanctions for unreasonable searches and seizures

d. Sanctions for unreasonable searches and seizures

Disciplinary Proceedings

Disciplinary Proceedings for police impropriety would usually take in the form of complaint procedures. An internal review mechanism would be a non-legally binding disciplinary code and enforced by the disciplinary board, while the external review mechanisms would be enforced pursuant to legally binding codes. The usual procedure is by lodging a formal complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman.

​Criminal Proceedings

The form of remedy is much more unpopular than the others as judges and jurors would be reluctant to impose criminal sanctions on police. Most importantly, criminal sanctions do not provide a remedy to victims.

Tort Proceedings

Having a civil tort system in place to handle claims of unreasonable searches and seizures seems to be a partially effective alternative form of punishment for the following reasons: it provides compensation to victims of such actions, allows for adjustments in damages to reflect proportionality, and can serve as a direct form of punishment if liability is established.

Nevertheless, there are limitations and challenges that can hinder the adoption of civil tort proceedings as the means of seeking redress. For instance, studies indicate that judges and jurors often lend more credibility to the testimony of police officers, which may disadvantage plaintiffs in these cases. Additionally, police officers themselves may lack the financial means to adequately compensate victims, although this issue can be addressed through the application of vicarious liability, as commonly practised in England and Wales. Furthermore, pursuing tort actions can be costly and burdensome for individuals seeking justice.