The Amendment may be pleaded for in the court of law if the criminal believes that answering during an interrogation by the police will lead to self – incrimination. The United State Supreme Court stretched the Fifth Amendment right by including any circumstances outside the courtroom that involves the limitation of personal freedom. Therefore, each time the law enforcement and its official puts a suspect or criminal into their custody, the law enforcement worker must make sure the suspect or criminal are aware of their legal right
This is one of the most important aspects of the criminal investigation process due to the fact that if the proper procedures aren’t followed, the validity of the case will be jeopardized. The Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) outlines the conditions of which a person can be arrested and detained. A key term in the arresting process is ‘suspicion on reasonable grounds’ as this describes the discretion of the police in making arrests. Although for most arrests, a warrant is needed, police can arrest someone if they genuinely believe that the person is guilty of a crime. After a person has been arrested, they will be detained in a police station and this process is also outlined in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW).
The ‘exclusionary rule’ was created to put under limitations the Federal officials and United States courts as they exercise their powers and authority. Additionally, it is in place to see that people maintain their own privacy and rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendments. It also allows people to secure their premises, person, papers and other effects from unwarranted and unreasonable searches and seizures under the pretense of law. The United States constitution does not allow or tolerate police searches and seizures without warrants and therefore illegal searches and seizure unless there is a good reason for it. This article will argue that the provision for ‘exclusionary rule’ has deterred the police from harassing innocent citizens particularly the minorities groups and defendants too with illegal and unwarranted searches and seizures.
Stop and frisk is when the police officer believes there is rational suspicion where a crime has been or will be dedicated. After the stop is made, the officer must be doubtful that the person has any type of weapon in order to perform a frisk, which is a search on the outer clothing of the person. Search of persons and premises is another type of search. This type of search is a full-blown search which does oblige a warrant. Depending on the occurrences, searches can be done before or after an arrest is performed.
To summarize the Fourth Amendment, it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. A search conducted by the government exists when the area or person being searched would reasonably have an expectation of privacy. A seizure takes place when the government takes a person or property into custody based on belief a criminal law was violated. If a search or seizure is deemed unreasonable, than any evidence obtained during that search and seizure can be omitted from court under
Whatever the situation is, an officer must articulate the facts and see if there is reasonable suspicion to stop someone. Law enforcement officers need a reason to stop you. Remember, it cannot be just a hunch the police officer had. Their action has to be backed up with facts that led him to believe you, or someone else had committed a crime. Like the Supreme Court cases we went over, all dealt with reasonable suspicion in some way.
Further, law provides remedies for violation and omission. Crime is an act of omission or commission of the legal provisions. The conflict between the crime control model and the due process model has been debated for quite some time. The due process model holds to the principle that an individual cannot be deprived of the property, life, liberty, and so forth without adhering to the proper legal system as well as safeguards. In addition, due process model suggests that when individuals are charged with criminal activities, the crime justice system ought to protect them.
(Crime control model) This paper will compare and contrast the role that the due process and crime control models have on shaping criminal procedure policy. Some of the differences between the due process model and the crime control model are in the due process model people that are arrested are perceived to be innocent until proven in a court of law. The crime control model believes that the people that are arrested are guilty and need to be punished by the government. Another difference with both models is the due process model believes that policing within the criminal justice system is essential to maintaining justice within society. The crime control model believes that the arresting of people in the criminal justice system has a negative effect and slows down the process of the criminal justice system.
The Fourth Amendment is the basis for several cherished rights in the United States, and the right to the freedom of unreasonable searches and seizures is among them. Therefore, it would seem illegitimate- even anti-American for any law enforcement agent to search and seize evidence unlawfully or for any court to charge the defendant with a guilty verdict established on illegally attained evidence. One can only imagine how many people would have been sitting in our jails and prisons were it not for the introduction of the exclusionary rule. The Exclusionary Rule is a law passed by the United States Supreme Court. It demands that “any evidence obtained by police using methods that violate a person’s constitutional rights be excluded from use in a criminal prosecution against that person” (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten, 2009).
According to the textbook Criminal Justice in Action, any arrest or seizure is unreasonable unless is supported by probable cause (Gaines, 2011). More than probable cause, police officers should rely on facts and circumstances that will lead them to arrest the individual accordingly. Works Cited Britz, M. T. (2008). Criminal Evidence. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.