The courts have failed to protect citizens from law enforcement officers who deliberately interfere with individual freedoms. The U.S Supreme court observed that city ordinances allowed officers certain administrative action that gave the officers discretionary power to easily control rights of citizens concerning their private life matters like religions, ideology and beliefs. Officers violate the first and the fourteenth amendment whenever they arrest anyone on grounds of holding a meeting without a permit. At the same time, the police commissioner issue permits and hold exclusive rights to revoke the permits and arrest the citizens for association without a permit. The courts have remained reluctant to review the prosecutorial decision making process used by the officers because of the fear to intrude on a core branch of government protected by the constitution. Equally, the courts lack a measurable criterion to determine the deterrence value of law enforcement officers. Factual complexity appears to dainty the cost of prosecuting a law enforcement officer.
Whenever a probable cause that supports criminal charges against a law enforcement officer is brought up, the court is perceived to exceed its authority to scrutinize internal work of the prosecution office. The court would interfere with the coequal constitutional responsibility placed before the court and the law enforcement officers. Therefore, whenever a citizen is facing false accusation, the citizen has to prove a probably cause that would cause the officers to accuse the citizen and after assessing if the prosecution is found to be malicious, the case can be cancelled. However, law enforcement officers make the ultimate decision when seeking indictment; thus, it is impossible for a citizen to determine that the prosecution evidence is fraud or directed to implicate without involvement of other officers who work together. Therefore, the ordinary criminal law and probable cause standards provide a loophole through which innocent citizens continue to be accused and indicted with unfounded criminal charges because of personal animus or hostility.
In conclusion, the criminal judicial and prosecutor standards interfere with First Amendment rights. Nevertheless, courts have protected citizens whenever a citizen would prove a probable cause as animus as the ultimate cause of the prosecution. In such a case, the court can reject indictment and set the citizen free. However, the court lacks power to challenge prosecutions that are started by the state and local law enforcement officers since the same effort would undermine the work of prosecutors.