The logic used by the Court in order to justify their conclusion is fraught with weak reasoning and dangerous interpretations of the Constitution. It violates the precedent set in Miranda and seems tainted with a desire to justify consent searches at any cost. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte is a decidedly pro-order case because it qualifies another excuse police can raise to search a citizen, but it is also dangerous because it shows that the Court is not the unbiased referee between liberty and democracy that it should be.
Over the years the way law enforcement officers have been able to investigate cases has been drastically changed over the years. Investigations used to be a very prying, and vindictive matter. Now it is very delicate. Since the Miranda case, law enforcement has been very open and aware of defendants’ rights.
The controversy in this case was did the search and seizure of Terry and the men he was with violate the Fourth Amendment? This case tried to determine the role of the Fourth Amendment when police are investigating suspicious circumstances on the street, and when there is probable cause to search someone that is displaying questionable behavior (Justia, n.d.).
Dissent: The dissenting justices argued that New York vs Belton gave police officers the power to search a vehicle at the time of arrest regardless of the person being arrested and their ability to reach the vehicle, and the Court’s analysis of New York vs Belton, which limits the area of search to the area within the arrestee’s initial reach. They stated that while their interpretation of New York vs Belton may be inadequate, it is the model that has been followed for twenty eight years. The trouble to overturn the model is great, and that load is not met here. Therefore, the Court should follow the model and rule that, because the search was close in time Gant was arrested, Gant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.
This assignment will cover a fictitious name of Mary Cooper a woman accused of harboring a fugitive, and illegal stolen equipment. The police attempted an illegal search and seizure in her home without a search warrant. This violates her Fourth Amendment rights. Cooper held that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the exclusion of evidence found though an illegal search by state and local police officers, extending to the state a rule that previously applied onto to federal law enforcement.
In the Supreme Court case, Chunon Bailey vs United States, it deliberate on Bailey 4th amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) was violated when the police officer detain Bailey before the warrant was executed. (updated)
The main benefit of racial profiling, based on opinions of others, is to save costs. The government’s resources are not unlimited, and any strategy that can be successfully used to limit the amount of money and time needed, may allow other demands of the government to use the extra resources (Huq). For racial profiling to be beneficial, the government must use this strategy properly. The race of an individual can be used as an identifier, much like gender and predominate characteristics. It would be extremely irresponsible for a police officer to search for a suspect of a recent crime and ignore their identified race when searching for the suspect. This form of profiling is acceptable because the identification of a suspect’s race allows police officers to use fewer resources than otherwise needed in a larger pool of potential suspects. Often, police officers have very little to go on when attempting to find a criminal. Officers should b...
The issue is whether there was a 4th Amendment and 6th Amendment violation in the search of the car and the subsequent confession.
In United States v. Alvarez, Xavier Alvarez claimed that he was a retired marine who had received the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1987 for being wounded repeatedly by the same person in combat. These claims were made in an attempt to have him gain more respect from his peers. The claim was that Alvarez had violated the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 states that there are protections against claiming to have received some type of military honor, such as the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards (GovTrack). The Government stated that there was first amendment value applicable to Alvarez’s false statements, and that his statements caused harm to others. By making this statement, it was argued that the value of the award of Honor would drop and that this type of false speech falls under the same category as speaking falsely on behalf of the government or as a government official. However, since his statements were not made with the intention of financial benefits or special treatment, his false claims may not be illegal because they were made for the purpose of gaining respect.
Laws and procedures are the most common basis for officers choosing not to allow offenders to remain free based on their discretion, a study by Mendias and Kehoe (2006) has found. The study found that laws or responsibilities were the main reason for a decision to suspend discretion in eighty-two percent of cases involving an arrest. The study also found that keeping the peace and procedural implications were the primary justifications for ex...
The emergence of new and innovative technology can be used in many deceitful or secretive ways by law enforcement agencies to convict a suspect. The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights has had a large influence in regulating the ways that law enforcement agencies may use technology against the everyday citizen. Technology can be used to obtain information on an individual without the individual being aware of the invasion of their privacy: e-mail accounts can be hacked, IP addresses can be traced, phones can be tapped and tracked, cars can be bugged.
There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law, like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact, obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific, this case deals with what is considered obscene, and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth.
Discretion is defined as the authority to make a decision between two or more choices (Pollock, 2010). More specifically, it is defined as “the capacity to identify and to document criminal and noncriminal events” (Boivin & Cordeau, 2011). Every police officer has a great deal of discretion concerning when to use their authority, power, persuasion, or force. Depending on how an officer sees their duty to society will determine an officer’s discretion. Discretion leads to selective enforcement practices and may result in discrimination against certain groups of people or select individuals (Young, 2011). Most police officer discretion is exercised in situations with individuals (Sherman, 1984).