Discretionary Justice
The purpose of this paper is to discuss several topics mentioned in the book “Down and Dirty Justice,” by Gary Lowenthal. In chapter two there is a case that involves a lady named Jennie that had called in a complaint that her boyfriend Carlos assaulted her the previous night and had taken their one-year-old son. This case brought up several interesting topics such as the wealth of information that law enforcement officers have on their computers, warrantless searches, and mandatory arrest policies.
In chapter two, there is a case that brings up the subject of the Fourth Amendment prohibition of warrantless searches. A search warrant is a written order by a judge authorizing the police to search in a particular place for particular items and is only valid if a judge is presented with facts establishing probable cause before issuing the warrant. In this chapter of the book it is said that, “one of the officers walked through the house without first asking for permission which is a textbook violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition of warrantless searches and confirmed that no one else was home (Lowenthal, 2003).” I would disagree with this being a simple textbook violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition of warrantless searches. There was a ruling in 1973 where the Supreme Court carved out an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. This ruling recognized the legitimacy of searches and seizures based on community caretaking or public safety considerations (Cady, 1973).
With that said, law enforcement agencies or prosecutors could argue that the law enforcement officers were simply conducting a wellness check for the baby that Jennie had reported to have been taken by her boyfrien...
... middle of paper ...
...ected. The cost of legal fees, bail, court fines, and loss of wages can really deter victims from reporting these crimes. Therefore, mandatory arrest policies help ensure incidents do not escalate and can be shown to deter offenders, but may also deter victims from reporting domestic violence crimes.
To conclude, the purpose of this paper is to discuss several topics mentioned in the book “Down and Dirty Justice,” by Gary Lowenthal. This paper discussed several topics that were related to a case involving a lady named Jennie that had called in a complaint that her boyfriend Carlos assaulted her the previous night and had taken their one-year-old son. Furthermore, this paper discussed several interesting topics that were related to that case such as the information law enforcement officers have on their computers, warrantless searches, and mandatory arrest policies.
Said by Justice David Souter “ In the majority opinion, compared the reasonableness of such a search to a more casual interaction.” He believes that the co-occupants consent is not valid because their was the refusal of an other occupant. Beside on the Fourth Amendment it states that “ a valid warrantless entry and search of a premises when the police obtain the voluntary consent of an occupant who shares, or is reasonably believed to share, common authority over the property, and no present co-tenant objects.”
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
Bibbings , Lois , and Donald Nicolson. 2000. “General principles of criminal law'? A feminist
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
The 4th amendment protects people from being searched or having their belongings taken away without any good reason. The 4th amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. For many years prior to the ratifiation, people were smuggling goods because of the Stamp Act; in response Great Britain passed the writs of assistance so British guards could search someone’s house when they don’t have a good reason to. This amendment gave people the right to privacy. “Our answer to the question of what policy must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant.” This was addressed to officers searching people’s houses and taking things without having a proper reason. I find
The Constitution of the United States of America protects people’s rights because it limits the power of government against its people. Those rights guaranteed in the Constitution are better known as the Bill of Rights. Within these rights, the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures […]” (Knetzger & Muraski, 2008). According to the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be issued before a search and seizure takes place. However, consent for lawful search is one of the most common exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
Criminal Justice: A Reflection on the Wayne Lo Case, 7 Asian AM. L.J. 1 Available at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/aalj/vol7/iss1/1
A criminal justice system has been in place since the dawn of time, from the hue and cry era of policing to the advancement of the system there have been many laws, models, and theories set into place to protect the citizens but also to provide law enforcement officers with power to carry out their duties. A communities interest in the criminal justice system is to prevent and stop crime with law enforcements assistance. This paper will provide an overlook of how concepts from the criminal justice system are applicable in everyday activities.
When officers arrived at the living area of Johnson and his roommate, Benner Brewer, they did not have a warrant to search Johnson’s area, which violated his 4th amendment rights against a warrantless search.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued
Schmalleger, F. (2009), Prentice Hall, Publication. Criminal Justice Today: An introductory Text for the 21st century
The definition of justice and the means by which it must be distributed differ depending on an individual’s background, culture, and own personal morals. As a country of many individualistic citizens, the United States has always tried its best to protect, but not coddle, its people in this area. Therefore, the criminal justice history of the United States is quite extensive and diverse; with each introduction of a new era, more modern technologies and ideals are incorporated into government, all with American citizens’ best interests in mind.
In this essay a discussion will be explored about the benefits and problems associated with police use of discretion. Which current policing strategies have the most potential for controlling officer discretion and providing accountability, and which have the least, and why is that the case? And finally, how might these issues impact the various concerns facing law enforcement today?
Muraskin, R., & Roberts, A. R. (2009)Visions for Change: Crime and Justice in the Twenty-First Century. 5th Edition ISBN: 978-0-13-613939-3
In the 1980’s legal tension involving police searches was a direct result of the war on drugs campaign. Officers were encouraged to stop and seize or search suspicious vehicles to put a halt on drug trafficking (Harns, 1998). But placing this aggressive approach into effect had many negative outcomes. One problem was that it put police on a thin line with the constitutional laws. To no surprise, pretty much no data estimating how often police searches fall outside constitutional laws exist. Only cases that catch the courts attention are logged into the record books. A case study held in “Middleberg” on suspect searches reports that 70 of the 86 searches didn’t result in arrest; citations weren’t presented nor were any charges filed. Just about all of the unconstitutional searches, 31 out of 34, weren’t reported to the courts, nor were they intended to be reported.