For example: an employee of the criminal justice department conducted his duties without making sure that others are not harmed by his means of conducting duty, due to this others may have been inflicted with harm or injury, thus the official is held responsible for conducted his duties in a negligent manner. Criminal justice officers experience intentional torts when they indulge knowingly and freely indulge in activities due to which citizens or other individuals of a society may be harmed (Vaughn, 1999). For example: a police officer uses coercive methods to obtain a confession from a suspect, due to his act the suspect gets badly injured, the police official is held responsible for using coercion and the confession obtained from the suspect might not be used as evidence in the court of law. A criminal justice employee may be held responsible in a case of constitutional tort if he fails to conduct his duties in accordance to the constitution of the country (Carlson, 1985, p.342). For example: if a police official makes an arrest and forgets to read the Miranda rights to the suspect, the police official may be held responsible for acting according the constitution and the suspect may be free to leave as his Miranda rights were not read to him (Peak, 2011, p.281).
Various activities conducted by the officials of the criminal justice system lead to tort liability, these activities includes: negligent behaviour, wrongful charges for arrest, breach of right of privacy, upholding information and evidence, and coercive interrogation. When an official of the criminal justice system is said to have acted in a negligent manner, he is said to have not exercised his duty of due care (Peak, 2011, p.341). This means that while conducting his duties, an official has not ensured to eradicate practices and procedures that may harm an individual and that are foreseen.