In our society today, law enforcement have to follow certain rules and regulations in order to keep our society safe and to ensure that people's individual rights are not violated. However, there are some circumstances that allow law enforcement to interfere with these constitutional rights. For example, the exigent circumstance rule alters the general requirements of a warrant. This rule gives authority to law enforcement to make an imminent action based upon an emergency situation where physical harm is present or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or the destruction of evidence without a warrant. These are among the key factors that allow law enforcement to interfere, even if they do not have a warrant to do so. This rule was
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.
On Thursday, 11/12/2015, at 17:01 hours, I, Deputy Stacy Stark #1815 was dispatched to a domestic disturbance in progress located at 66 Paper Lane, Murphysboro, IL 62966. It was reported that a 15 year old female juvenile was busting out windows on her mother’s vehicle. Deputy Sergeant Ken Lindsey #2406 and Deputy John Huffman #2903 responded as well.
...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda.
On a dark and rainy night in October of 2011, Samuel Pauly was shot to death through the window of his rural New Mexico home by one of three state police officers investigating an earlier road rage incident. On behalf of Samuel Pauly's estate, his father filed a civil rights action against the three officers, the State of New Mexico Department of Public Safety, and two state officials, claiming defendants violated his son's Fourth Amendment right against the use of excessive force. During this entire case between White vs Pauly the main underlining issue was that, is it clearly established by law that a late-arriving officer at an ongoing situation must second-guess the actions of officers that had arrived before? What the Supreme Court is
According to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the government is not allow to take away any individual’s life, liberty or property without a fair due process of law. Within the due process we can find the substantive and procedural process (Wasserman, 2004). The substantive put limits on the government actions such as interfering with certain personal basic interest. However, the procedural process protects the accused individual’s rights by ensuring that such person has the opportunity to be heard, and get a fair trial.
The basis of criminal justice in the United States is one founded on both the rights of the individual and the democratic order of the people. Evinced through the myriad forms whereby liberty and equity marry into the mores of society to form the ethos of a people. However, these two systems of justice are rife with conflicts too. With the challenges of determining prevailing worth in public order and individual rights coming down to the best service of justice for society. Bearing a perpetual eye to their manifestations by the truth of how "the trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both" (Hitchens, 2003, para. 5).
The Tennessee v. Garner case impacted law enforcement agencies today by utilizing the Fourth Amendment right of not using deadly force to prevent a suspect from fleeing unless the officer is in imminent danger of their life. Consequently, before this was set into place, an officer had the right to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect by all means.” The first time the Court dealt with the use of force was in Tennessee v. Garner, in Garner, a police officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" that the suspect was an unarmed teenager "of slight build" who was running away from him” (Gross,2016). Whereas, with Graham v. Conner case was surrounded around excessive force which also has an impact on law enforcement agencies in today’s society as well. “All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of s free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard” (Doerner,2016).
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).
Dan Locallo is a very contradicting man. When he began his career as a prosecutor he was anything but polite to the defense lawyers. Locallo himself describes himself as “kind of an asshole” towards defense lawyers (Courtroom 302, 59). During his time as a prosecutor, Dan Locallo became intrigued by the opportunity to become a judge. When Steve Bogira asked Locallo why he wanted to become a judge, his reply seemed simple. Locallo claimed that he never wanted to become a judge because of a “power-trip” he does claim that “the power of attraction was a great influence” (Courtroom 302, 59). However, Locallo admits that the real reason why he wanted to become a judge was because he would have the “ability to make decisions, to do justice” (Courtroom 302, 59). As a judge, Locallo seems to express three different personalities, which tend to change depending on the current case at hand. His personalities are being compassionate judge, being an understanding judge, or being a hard-nose tough judge. Each of these personalities are not only determined by the case, but also by whether Locallo will profit on the long run; whether or not he will get reelected as a circuit judge at the end of his term.
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 searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Its definition was clarified in Illinois v. Gates (1983), when the court proclaimed that probable cause would have a “flexible approach” depending on how serious the case is. While this method is certainly effective in preserving the guidelines of the fourth amendment, there have been times in history when the government was in violation of the people’s rights. In Weeks v. United States (1914), police officers illegally searched Fremont Weeks home by using a hidden key. They seized Weeks personal papers, letters, and books to use in court. However, the Supreme Court ruled the search unconstitutional due to the fact that officials had no probable cause, and therefore no warrant. From colonial times till now, the question of when a warrant is necessary has been a reoccurring theme in arrests, court decisions, and all that
Over the years, this country has witnessed many cases of police brutality. It has become a controversial topic among communities that have seen police brutality take place in front of their homes. Officers are faced with many threatening situations everyday forcing them to make split second decisions and to expect the worst and hope for the best. Police officers are given the power to take any citizens rights away and even their lives. With that kind of power comes responsibility, that’s one major concern with the amount of discretion officers have is when to use force or when to use lethal force. The use of excessive force may or not be a large predicament but should be viewed by both the police and the community.
Police discretionary practices vary from officer to officer and every officer is differently trained by departments. Without the proper use of discretion out on the field, police officers are left open for legal suit actions however, if the officers are trained and exercising the use of discretion in a good manner, each individual officer can be held accountable. The second disadvantage of use of police discretion is that it allows the police officers to have too much power on making decisions which can affect the life, safety or liberty of an individual (Bargen, 2005). Police discretion presents a clear danger to society because the average officer can make a poor decision and affect the life of a person or persons. If discretion in law enforcement is used in a wrongful manner, it has great potential for being abused out of the field. Discretion allows police officers to “perform a duty or refrain from taking action” (Gaines & Kappeler, 2003, p. 251). Police officers are supposed to enforce equality under the law, people in society all should have equal rights and should be treated the same. However, discretion allows police officers to misuse it by treating offenders of different genders, race, class, ethnicity, religion, age and more inappropriately (Pepinsky, 1984). Law enforcement officers are
Skolnick, J., Fyfe, J. (1993) Above the law: Police and the Excessive use of force. United States: The Free Press
Being able to protect one’s self and family is a right that everybody should be able to carry out without any hindrance from any government entity. Yet in this country “the land of the free” we still have laws that do just that. It is a common misconception that the Police are there to protect the public from the criminal element. This was decided in a landmark ...