Entrapment is a very important issue today in criminal justice because of the United States wide use of undercover operations that are meant to evoke victimless offenses as a part of proactive law enforcement. Nevertheless like with other laws entrapment is something that needs to be regulated and a since of fairness should also be installed. Undercover operations are necessary and they have their place in the law enforcement arena however these operations have severe backlashes that causes a potential “drug bust” to turn into an investigation of a detective department when things go wrong. This type of police corruption leads to lost of respect in the community along with trust from the thought of being infiltrated with police spies (McAdams,2005). States and federal courts regulate under over operations y using the entrapment defense which excuses a person who committed an offense due to the encouragement of law enforcement from any criminal accountability (Dillof, 2004). The main focus of the entrapment defense isn’t to determine if a criminal act has taken place, but whether police involvement caused a person to commit a criminal act. This is the area in which the operations become cloudy.
As with all controversial laws, statues and defenses they have landmark cases that are used as reference cases that define what the limitations of the law are and what the laws are not. With the entrapment defense the first documented case was Sorrells v. United States in 1932 during the prohibition of alcohol (McAdams, 2005). In this case an undercover police agent acted as a tourist and visited the Sorrells’ residence. The officer discovered from other residents that Sorrells had served in World War I. He told Sorrells that he served i...
... middle of paper ...
...son claimed entrapment saying that the government had made him curious. Jacobson was found guilty, but the Supreme Court overturned his conviction finding that the prosecution failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Jacobson’s predisposition to commit the crime was “independent of government acts” (Lord,1998).
In conclusion, the entrapment defense the Supreme Court recognizes that criminal behavior is no always due to a guilty mind, but may be the result of the individual reacting to the environment around them. Entrapment is often misunderstood and despite the previous Supreme Court there are some areas of the entrapment defense that are still cloudy and are not cut and dry. Therefore the application of the entrapment defense is important and necessary in ensuring and upholding fundamental fairness, protecting individuals from wrongful police conduct.
In this case, the Supreme Court decision in reversing the decision of the trail court. Although the suspects were conducting an illegal crime, the officers were reckless in the procedures in collecting the evidence. In this case, if there was a report or call concerning the drug activities in the apartment, being that the Police Department was conducting a the drug sting, it would have justified the reasoning behind the officers kicking the door in and securing suspects and evidence.
The court will likely hold that Andrew Keegan’s (“Mr. Keegan”) actions were a product of a law enforcement officer in influencing his conduct therefore establishing an entrapment defense.
The Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination Clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware to his rights and the suspect had then waived them
We will examine the case of NYPD Narcotics Detective Frank Serpico, who was regarded as a snitch and a rat by fellow officers who were on the take, and complete a what would you do dilemma. Serpico's original intent was not to be a "whistleblower" within the Department, but rather all he wanted to do initially was to be a Police Officer and not accept any bribes, payoffs, or favors as a result of his professional position within the community (Petit, 2011). As a consequence of his testimony before the Knapp Commission in 1971, Serpico was ostracized by his peers as a deviant for being conscientious; ergo, although it cannot be proven, it is believed that he was ultimately set up to be shot during a drug raid in which he was seriously wounded. To this day, Frank Serpico questions why fellow cops never called in a code 10-13 officer down after he took a bullet in the face on Feb. 3, 1971 (McShane, 2012).
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
For example, in his article “Fighting Police Corruption”, Krauss states, “The 911 call could hardly have been more routine. A man wearing a denim jacket and fatigue pants was reported to be selling drugs outside a housing project in southern Brooklyn. Two plainclothes officers responded to the call on a mild night last month, frisked the man and found $400 under the seat of his bicycle. But finding no drugs, the police let him go. The officers were unaware that they had just taken "a walk on the dark side": police talk for an Internal Affairs Bureau sting. The "drug dealer" was actually an undercover officer wired for sound, and the interchange was videotaped from a van parked a block away to see if the officers would rough up the supposed dealer or steal his money. These officers did neither”. Sting operations like this one are a central part of the Police Department 's efforts to overcome the damaging corruption scandals that engulfed the 75Th Precinct in NY between 1986 and
After the article was published, Branzburg was immediately subpoenaed by the Jefferson County Court system. The court demeaned that he name the two individuals featured in the article, but he stood strong and refused to give up their names like he had promised them. Branzburg argued that the Kentucky Privilege Statute passed in 1962 protected him from having to give up the names.(1) He also argued that the First Amendment and Kentucky constitution, (Sections 1,2, and 8) protected his right not to disclose the information of the two individual’s identities.(2) However, the Kentucky courts fought back arguing that the Kentucky Privilege Statute didn’t allow a reporter to refuse to testify about things they saw, or not disclose the names of people they were in contact with. Branzburg then took his case to the Kentucky appeals court, which ruled against him once again. He continued to fight the good fight for what he thought was true and right; the case finally ended up at the Supreme Court.
The case of Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]) is one of the most important cases in history. It brought about prominent rights that are still existent today in 2015 regarding interrogations and custody. The results of this case are still seen in the current criminal justice system. However, even though the rights that were given to the system by the court, there are still instances today in which these Miranda rights are violated. The concept of Miranda has evolved a lot from a court case to a code used by law enforcement during custodies and investigations.
Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).
As demonstrated, tunnel vision is a prevalent factor and may affect cases resulting in judges and juries convicting wrong suspects. However, the human tendency towards tunnel vision is a distinctive feature of an individual's psychological characteristics. Psychologist views tunnel vision as the product of cognitive biases. These natural biases explain why tunnel vision is common, even amongst respected legal enforcers and honest justice systems. Although tunnel vision is a common natural tendency, it can be altered and lead to the conviction of innocent individuals.
For years police corruption has been a major problem in American society but where is the line between moral and unethical police corruption, many modern movies address this vary issue. Some films portray how types of police corruption can have a positive influence on society, while others show the dark side of police corruption. Many law enforcement agents join the criminal justice with the basic idea of “justice for all,” however, most of them do not realize that the nice guy doesn’t always win. Even though there are vast amounts of movies which specifically address police corruption we will use three main movies for our argument today, mostly LA Confidential, however, also Training Day.
It is often said that power brings corruption, but in reality it is an individual’s lack of character, self-discipline, and integrity that leads to corruption. Law enforcement can bring many temptations on the job, and maintaining an up most level of personal integrity can often times be very difficult. The very nature of the job surrounds officers with all of the bad things that society, produces. There can be an endless amount of training and rules put into place to try and deter officers from committing unethical acts, but in the end it really just comes down to the specific individual and their willingness to do the right thing.
In our times, the police have become the criminals. Some police are using their power to do bad things, and society has come to fear police. The law enforcement system needs change. The courts have failed the police, and the police have turn to other means of justice. We must stop the corruption in the police force.
Police corruption is a nationwide problem that has been going on for many years. Not only is corruption a problem on our own U.S. soil, but police practices of corruption go as far east as Europe and Asia. Many studies, polls and examinations were taken to find out how exactly what the general publics’ opinions of the police are. Officers receive a lot of scrutiny over this issue, but for good reason.
Vicchio, Stephen. “Ethics and Police Integrity.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. July 1997: 8-12. EBSCOhost. Web. 12 Nov 2013