There are remedies however, for those who abuse the system. In this essay I will critically consider the conditions for a lawful arrest. There is however, no concrete definition of arrest. It was deprived in Christie v Leachinsky (1947) that an arrest is ‘the beginning of imprisonment’, thereby suspects to a degree are physically restrained as they cannot be free to go wherever they like. So, during a criminal investigation, an arrest occurs whereby the police has the legal and factual grounds to deprive someone’s liberty.
This was the first time in history, wherein a minister was held in contempt of court and the decision was made to uphold supremacy of law and not supremacy of an executive who as per the law was not protected by the immunity levied to the Crown which being the Crown can do no wrong as per Crown Proceedings Act 1947. This judgement laid a foundation for the future years by bringing a drastic change in the way the crown could be sued in a court of law. The Act of Crown Proceedings 1947 ensured civil actions could be brought against the executive for he was not above the law and was to work only within the ambit of the
In the year 1974, in the case Procunier vs. Martinez the prisoners alleged that their rights to speech had been violated, because their mail was censored. In its ruling, the court stated that any restrictions on the prisoner’s mail must be reasonable . However, the court also clarified that the communications would only be limited to the point of protecting the government’s interests.The Civil Rights Act 1871 allows prisoners the right to freedom of association. In the Jones vs. North California prisoner’s labor union case, the court upheld that the prison union would not be restricted to the right of association.The Law has upheld and maintained that the prisoners have a right to freedom of religion. This simply means that each prisoner can belong to any religion he or she wishes, with no
Miranda, 384 U.S. at 442. For that reason, Miranda v. Arizona established procedural safeguards, which requires: [A] defendant to be warned before questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says could be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to him prior to any questioning. Id. at 479. Unless an effective use of this procedural safeguard is demonstrated the prosecution may not use incriminating statements stemming from a custodial interrogation.
It is important that upon request, the criminal must be informed of their constitutional rights and must be allowed to exercise them. The Chief Justice Warren argues that when an individual is taken into custody, the Miranda warnings must be given. If not, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self – incrimination is jeopardized when the individual is deprived of his/her freedom. He also argues that the criminal can waive his/her rights and agree to make a statement once the Miranda rule has been given; though, a valid waiver is not presumed by mere silence. Chief Justice Warren further explained that the Miranda rule do not hamper the police in investigating crime because the general on the scene interrogation is not affected in any way.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte is a decidedly pro-order case because it qualifies another excuse police can raise to search a citizen. It asserts that an individual can verbally waive their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures so long as this waiver is not coerced by a government official. The Court goes on to decide that it is not required for suspects to demonstrate knowledge of these rights before waiving them. The blow to liberty interest is put most elegantly in Justice Marshall's dissent when he writes, "I have difficulty in comprehending how a decision made without knowledge of available alternatives can be treated as a choice at all." This precedent that a citizen may make a decision to waive their rights without knowing of the alternative, in this case maintaining the Fourth Amendment's protections, is perfectly legitimate is dangerous for liberty interests in a world where order-seeking policemen seek to take advantage of uninformed citizens.
In a different perspective using convicts, we will examine how inmates rights are effected after incarceration. The overall objective needs of a prison is to be secure and at ease. In 1987 Supreme Court Case Turner v. Safley argued that the prison guards were limiting their free speech by not allowing them to send letter mails to each other. The ruling of this case lead to the creation called the “Turner Standard.” The Turner Standard consist of a series of four questions that depicts whether the contents of speech or prison policy is considered constitutional. The four standards are: the policy in question must address a valid issue of prison security or rehabilitation, inmates must have alternate means of communication, courts must consider the impact of speech on other prisoners, guards, and prison resources, and are there other alternatives that would not restrict a prisoner’s freedom of expression.
Mr. Cassell argues h... ... middle of paper ... ...fessions that were made were coerced or voluntary and to set a fair trial for that defendant. It is the right for arresting officers to read the accuser his or her rights because if the courts weren't fair was the purpose of having one. The Miranda Rights does serve a purpose and that's to inform the defendants of his rights before self incrimination therefore; it is up to the defendant to waive their rights. This wouldn't be America if people were guilty before they were proven innocent. .
Although, anyone who is caught in a zone of conflict is denied the right to have a trial or attorney to prevent any terrorist attacks from happening one of the Supreme Court justices stated that a meaningful opportunity must be given to the individual because he was a U.S. citizen. Justice O’Connor and Kennedy both agreed that Hamdi had to be given an opportunity, so that he could present his case with factual evidence before a final decision was made. The Fifth Amendment contains a Due Process Clause, which is a safeguard from denying any individual the right to life, liberty, or any penalty of the government outside the law. Justice O’Connor and Kennedy stated that although Hamdi was arrested in a zone of conflict he was detained in the United States, which gave him a meaningful opportunity to be able to prove his argument with factual evidence. These justices stated that Hamdi had the opportunity to present evidence that proved why he was not an enemy combatant.
It also states that a warrant has to be signed by a judge and cannot be issued without probably cause. The warrant also has to specify the place that will be search, the person to be search or what will be seized. (Constitution.Org, n.d.) The amendment puts limitations on law enforcement officers. If a police officer suspects something illegal is happening within a residence, he must obtain a warrant and have probable cause. This can lead to evidence disappearing during the time it takes an officer to obtain the warrant and enter the house.