CRJ325 - ASSIGNMENT 2 - CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
ASSIGNMENT 2

1


Constitutional Rights
Strayer University
Felicia McCaw
Professor Christopher J. Abreau
CRJ325
Online Spring 2017
June 5, 2017

Constitutional Rights
2

The acts of nation and body summarily deals with governmental litigation of the United States commonly referred to as an adversary system. This government structure and American legal tradition inherited from English common law allowed the transference of legal, thought and deed and act from America’s mother country of sweet England. Acting as a sentinel and guider this great mentor has passed the illustrious ability to form a structuralized legal system (adversary playground) to apply justice and right before a neutral administrator whose purpose is to retain the structure, regulate development of issues rendered before court by rivaling opponents of defendant and prosecutor.

As with purpose the source of rights are derivative from the Great Constitution and amendments of verse and right to fairness and the act of legality for a nation and all therein. Therefore, as indeed the need for true fair governance comes the actual structure of the constitution for federal and state with applicable statutes, case law and supportive consistency to retain acts of fairness in applicable states of decision and attendance to court rules of administering the acts and motions in court. As such the United States Constitution is indeed a fidelity to itself and the people in this country. Acting as a safeguard the Bill of Rights which are the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution formed and sealed by the great council to afford minimum rights to individuals facing criminal prosecution in a federal and state setting.

As fidelity to the country exist so does the need for continued autonomy and continued protection of dignity for those even though the substantive due process suffers challenges the true consequence continue to rear its head to indeed challenge the fort and support the doctrine to

Constitutional Rights
3

help it retain its legitimacy and right. With the 14th Amendment acting as protector and right this allows the continued protection through the criminal process and weighs predominantly on the actual protection afforded by this amendment and as such a continued support of the substantive due process. Further the substantive due process is also a complementary preventer in preventing unfairness and the annihilator of adverse legislation by the Supreme Court.

Active in principle and deed the due process clause guarantee a fair process and the liberty it protects and the halting of unjust governmental interference which compromise fundamental rights that pertain to continued liberty, thought and actions. Even with the consideration of poverty, unemployment, and inadequate education as relayed by Judge Fleming and contrasted with immigration of the depression the wave of increased criminal acts of today signify the need for change of point to address modifications of approach as well as consider the deprived states of knowledge, socialization, and erratic states of stability.

As with the states of economic distress also comes waves of increased criminality, despondency and the active despair of a shattered dream and fear of receiving fair justice in a land that promises and swears justice. Consequently, basic human rights are effectively as important as the Bill of Rights whose imperturbable face is turned against injustice and acts of misconduct that would cause expressions of bias, bigotry, prejudice and discrimination. Therefore, the constitutionality of rights worldwide is a pattern of correction and fidelity to stand against increased acts of crime, mayhem and treasonous acts.

Weaved within the 14th Amendment the exclusionary rule acts as a constitutional right to prevent police misconduct and as thus targets conduct deemed by the court as culpable.

Constitutional Rights
4

Deterrence acts as a sole proprietor of the rule as well as remedy for the violation of the Fourth Amendment. Without a remedy there is no chance for correction or a right. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment allows the ability of the United States and officials to be limited and restrained in its power and exercise of authority and in effect secures the people, their persons, houses, papers and all that is theirs against unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of the law. As such the right to protest with freedom of speech with support of the First Amendment correlates to the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment and continues to support constitutional rights.

With the task of determining a true right or wrong the rule of law in effect fulfills the purpose of determining and establishing no person is above the law and therefore are accountable for his or her actions. As such this principle is tied closely to law enforcement due to the terrorist attack of 9/11 and ensuring police accountability in the United States. Further criminal and civil liabilities are upheld to restrict and hold civil officers accountable for their conduct on and off-duty.

During the process of arrest the four requirements or elements of arrest are inclusive of seizure and detention, intention to arrest, arrest authority and understanding by the individual that he or she is being arrested. As related to all incidental requirements for investigation for arrest relating to complaints, or APBs or visually seen acts of crime the following must be summarily followed. Either actual or constructive seizure is the first element of arrest which places the individual or perk into police custody. Arrests are usually either with a warrant (unseen criminal act) or without if the perk is visually seen committing a criminal act.

Constitutional Rights
5

The intention to arrest is based upon the purpose of taking the perk into police custody and presenting the individual before a judicial officer or to the police station. As the arresting authority this allocates authorization to make the arrest which is valid by a police officer but invalid if proper authorization does not exist. The last element of arrest is when the perk has full knowledge of his or her situation by the conveying of the Miranda rights and removing to the squad car and subsequently to the police station.

As a parallel to arrest the act of search and seizure with a warrant is levied against first the person then actively upon the immediate area whether vehicle or home. Therefore, the act of a true seize is based upon the perception of a reasonable person and on a totality of circumstances. Further acts of search and seizure are governed by the Fourth Amendment without a warrant and are still subjected to the probable cause requirement. Additionally, the right to privacy and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is an expected right against governmental intrusion and infringement upon basic individual rights.

With or without warrant the plain view doctrine allows the seizure of illegal tools that continue acts of criminality or is a silent accomplice in acts of crime. Therefore, the right to seize, arrest is allowable if visually sighted. As a right hand, the four requirements (probable cause, supporting oath or affirmation, description of the place to be searched and things to be seized, signature of the magistrate) works in harmonious balance with the plain view doctrine because it serves a dual purpose.

In relation to the plain view doctrine, the levels of search and seizure in the case of the United States v. Carey is one of the cases that make the applicable state of seizure complicated,

Constitutional Rights
6

limited and require additional warrant to seize any conductive or credible information found. As such the plain view means only the record that is visible without moving from screen to screen. Therefore, the act of warrant has to conclusively state probable cause is all records, cyber trails, chip and residual finds on phone if used in commission of crimes and a reasonable suspicion has established this position.

Other acts of how the plain view is applicable come into effect if sighted during a valid stop these tools of crime are enabled to be seized because probable cause is situated and proven and allows arrest. Further the officer must be in a physical position legally and with sight acknowledge that it is a seizable item. Basically, the principle is if the item sighted is illegal and can cause or be a contributor to a crime it is seizable as long as the officer is there in a legal capacity.

During the identification process, two major issues that relate to lineups and others means of pretrial identification is relatively associated with the human memory and the subject’s propensity to remember erroneously pertaining to events and details that possibly did not occur. As such the issue at hand is based upon “original memory” and its formation and ability to be clearly delineated as first consideration of the subject, and second if the subject or suspect is wrongly identified then the consistent pattern would concede to the retaining of the subject identified even though he or she is not the perpetrator.

Basically the unreliability of memories cause a collective pattern of falseness and therefore a weakness in the lineup process. Further the corroboration of a vulnerable memory leads to bias and as thus the re-looking in past causes conflicting of details that mirror

Constitutional Rights
7

misinformation and structuralized imagery mentally and therefore colors the reception as subjects are viewed. Therefore, the credibility and accuracy of lineups are affectively colored by reactions, unconscious discrimination, bias, personal feelings and lastly a question of competence.

With that in mind a lineup involves a victim and witness at a police station trying to identify a suspect from a group of five or more individuals. The prevalent issues related to eye witness identification (lineups, showups, photographic identification has subsequently lead to concerns because of unreliability and that in comparison circumstantial evidence (DNA or fingerprints) are more accurate in identifying suspects or proving guilt. Therefore, comes the rub of unreliability and the need to ensure identification processes are fair and reliable. Lack of guidelines and procedure is another hindering factor and effectively cause an ability to challenge due to low reliability and flawed procedures.

As a consistent parallel the accused has the right to a fair trial protected by the Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and the 14th Amendment which encompasses ten basic rights, of the ten five are as follows: the right to trial by jury, the right to counsel, the right to due process, the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to a fair and impartial trial. During the process of trial and the adversary exchange of defense and attack, the accused needs legal counsel to understand the intricacies of the legal climate as well as legal exchange and interactions during court. Further due process involves the active state of allowable defense whether for federal or state if charged with a crime or the removal of life, liberty, or property without the aid of law and court, nor shall private property be taken for public use without

Constitutional Rights
8

compensation. Also, the accused has protection of the Fifth Amendment to protect against self-incrimination or the act of being a witness against self.

The other five rights consist of the right to protection against double jeopardy which is defined as being prosecuted again for the same offense by the same jurisdiction, the right to confront witnesses by cross-examination, physically face and be present as witnesses, the right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses in defense and recital of version of facts, the right to a speedy and public trial due to avoid delay, avoid bias and allow public entry and lastly the right to proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to establish a reasonable and established point based on facts, testimony and determination. These additional rights are protected by the Sixth Amendment with the last right protected by Fifth and 14th Amendment.

For example, in the case of United States v. Jones (2012) a warrant was issued to monitor the vehicle by installing a GPS on a vehicle registered in the name of the wife of the defendant, Antoine Jones. The warrant authorized the installation of the device within ten days in the District of Columbia but was installed instead on the eleventh day in the state of Maryland. The vehicle was tracked for twenty-eight days, information gathered allowed an indictment of Jones and others on drug trafficking conspiracy charges. As with the clear note of fairness the Fourth Amendment was violated, first because the warrant timeframe had expired, secondly the GPS was supposed to be installed in the District of Columbia and not Maryland. Because, the Fourth Amendment guarantees protection against unreasonable search and seizure this allowed the accused charges to be dismissed because of a technicality and error. Therefore, in all cases that have ambiguities and lack of clarity the right to question and fight comes as guarantee by the Bill of Rights and constitutional safeguards of Amendments.

References

Carmen, R.V. D. (2014). Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice, 9th Edition. [Strayer University Bookshelf]. Retrieved from https://strayer.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305840799/
Bell, V., Hemmens, C., & Gerhard, N. (2010). Getting touchy-feely: application of the plain view doctrine to plain touch, plain smell and plain hearing situations by the United States Courts of Appeal and District Courts. Criminal Justice Studies, 23(1), 3-20. doi:10.1080/14786011003634340
Moore, R. (2004). TO VIEW OR NOT TO VIEW: Examining the Plain View Doctrine and Digital Evidence. American Journal Of Criminal Justice, 29(1), 57-73.
Romero, E. (1988). FOURTH AMENDMENT –REQUIRING PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCHES AND SEIZURES UNDER THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE. Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology, 78(4), 763-791.
Hall, R. J. (1991). FOURTH AMENDMENT –ELIMINATING THE INADVERTENT DISCOVERY REQUIREMENT FOR SEIZURES UNDER THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE. Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology, 81(4), 819-840.
Tapp, D.A. (2010). SEARCHING AND SEIZING DIGITAL EVIDENCE. Kentucky Law Enforcement Magazine, 9(3), 70-73.
Connelly, L. (2015). CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATIONS: SOLUTIONS TO THE “THEY ALL LOOK ALIKE” EFFECT. Michigan Journal Of Race & Law. 21(1), 125-145.
KANNAN, P. M. (2016). Logic from the Supreme Court that May Recognize Positive Constitutional Rights. University Of Memphis Law Review, 46(3), 637-659.
BUNIN, A. (2016). The Constitutional Right to Counsel at Bail Hearings. Criminal Justice, 31(1), 23-47.
Epstein, R. A. (1992). The indivisibility of liberty under the Bill of Rights. Harvard Journal Of Law & Public Policy, 15(1), 35.
Seo, S. A. (2007). A SHATTERED DREAM. THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE AND THE DRAFTING OF THE INTERNATIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS. Thomas Jefferson Law Review, 30(1), 179-196.
Rubin, P.J. (2003). SQUARE PEGS AND ROUND HOLES SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS. Columbia Law Review, 103(4), 833.
Baker Jr., J. S. (1992). The effectiveness of bills of rights. Harvard Journal Of Law & Public Policy, 15(1), 55.
Henderson, S.E., & Sorensen, K. (2013). Search, Seizure, and Immunity: Second-Order Normative Authority and Rights. Criminal Justices Ethics, 32(2), 108-125. doi: 10.1080/0731129X.2013.814850
Yeager, D.B. (1993). SEARCH, SEIZURE AND THE POSITIVE LAW EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY OUTSIDE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology, 84(2), 249-309.
Kamalu, N.C. (2016). AFRICAN AMERICANS AND RACIAL PROFILING BY U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT: AN ANALYSIS OF POLICE TRAFFIC STOPS AND SEARCHES OF MOTORISTS IN NEBRASKA, 2002-2007. African Journal Of Criminology & Justice Studies, 9(1), 187-206.