"Lineups and Other Means of Pretrial Identification"
Read the article located in the course shell titled, “The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony: A talk by Barbara Tversky, Professor of Psychology and George Fisher, Professor of Law”. Next, explain two (2) major issues that you can identify as it relates to lineups and other means of pretrial identification.
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 misinformation and structuralized imagery in our mind and therefore colors the reception as we view subjects. 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.
Discuss two (2) situations in which you feel that Miranda warnings are not required as it relates to arrest, custody, and interrogation.
Situations that the Miranda warnings are not required as it relates to arrest, custody and interrogation are as follows:
• For routine traffic stops
• No custodial interrogation
• When the officer does not ask any questions
• When asking a suspect routine identification questions
• When questioning witnesses who are not suspects
• In stop-and-frisk cases
• During lineup, showups, or photographic identification
• When the statement is made to a private person
• When a suspect testifies before a grand jury
• When there is a threat to public safety
• When an undercover officer poses as an inmate and asks questions
In effect these situations are relative to police regulations and rules and as such are based on the correctness that is allowed in differing scenarios where the Miranda rights are not needed due to the nature that it does not allow an entrapment phase to be entered and is effective and legal and fair to all.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
Discussion One
Part 1
I agree that eye witnesses can affectively sway a case against a suspect or defendant but due to its very nature of possible unreliability and lack of a consistent rendition of circumstances relating to the crime it becomes a possibility to challenge, discard and shred the witness.
Part 2
Allowing a witness to taint a case is a case based on lies and the witness has been coached thus this is what makes a mockery of the legal and judicial system. Either you saw, recall in detail or you didn't. This is not a circus or a place for levity. As representatives of justice and legality where is the right to be all by themselves. Ulterior motives exist everywhere you go but in the cases of fair play make sure the true committer of crimes are off the street and protect the populace as guaranteed.
Discussion Two
Part 1
I agree regular questions are routine but when the level of possible threat is evident or felt I would request my Miranda rights anyway. Witnesses are immune unless they are part of the criminal act.
Part 2
I agree with your summation regarding the Miranda rights for routine stops but if sighted in Plain View it escalates and evolves the scenario to give the Rights when arrested. Further the waiver is a conscious and actively tnought out act that makes a clear point that they are caught and cannot get out of the situation but I would still reserve the right to be read my Miranda rights anyway until I have counsel.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
Reply to Discussion Two
Part 1
I agree that based on sheer questions there is no harm intended or act of entrapment intended just a query for facts.
Part 2
A traffic stop that is done merely because of a slight deviation in driving and evolves to a sighting of tools of instrumentality relating to a criminal act proceeds to the next step of asking them out of the car for frisk and pat down, arrest and continued search of the vehicle. As such the Miranda rights are offered as the cuffs are locked.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
Answer to Part 1
I agree that witnesses can be unconsciously manipulated by looking from one face to another and picking the ones who are similar to each other and who meet the criteria of the suspect. But in effect is this helping or hindering the correct selection process. Being a reliable witness is important as your left hand...if your memory is faulty, or you are unsure don't just pick anyone they throw at you.
Also, a photo line is deceptive and compromising because if the person's memory is faulty a picture won't invoke or recall memory or details. Further I agree that at its best the witness would not be deemed credible.
Answer to Part 2
I agree that if a story changes and begins to live its own tale then again the witness is not reliable or credible and the additional fodder may not be worth checking into.
Thank you.
Felicia
Thursday, June 22, 2017
CRJ325 - WEEK 6 - DISCUSSION 6
"The Fourth (4th) Amendment: The New Frontier."
Read the article titled, “Still the American Frontier: Fourth (4th) Amendment Litigation” located at http://wispd.org/attachments/article/220/Still%20the%20American%20Frontier-%20Fourth%20Amendment%20Litigation.pdf. Explain in your own words situations in which the plain view doctrine applies. List other exceptions to this doctrine not mentioned in the text? Please support your response.
Prior to discussing the Plainview Doctrine the stated fact of the Fourth Amendment provides the active right to privacy and the two constitutional rights that limit the powers of the police in the search and seizure. In relation to privacy and reasonable expectation two requirements are present as follows: 1) The person has right to exhibit an actual expectation of privacy and 2) The expectation is one that society view and prepare to recognize and state as reasonable. Therein comes the quandary when the effective state of the warrant issued states with specifics that the search is for a particular element and an evidential find surfaces that leads to an infringement of a subject’s Fourth Amendment’s right and reflects a provable violation then summarily the Plainview Doctrine alternatively causes a conflictual pattern that allows the permissive state to challenge any compromisable evidence seized.
Seizures are based upon with a warrant (the rule – with specifications) and without a warrant (the exception or dependent on circumstances) and as such the Plainview Doctrine covers a differing amount of scenarios which would allow the seizing of condemnatory evidence but as each scenario alternates so does the approach to seize and is conditional as each investigative strategy is acted out.
With a valid stop, the officer is allowed to seize illegal items in plainview. With an invalid stop, harassment or color or race identified can purposely cause reason to challenge an unreasonable stop, seizure and support a motion to dismiss contraband or findings. In effect the Plainview Doctrine must have probable cause which parallels to a stop that is also conditioned to reasonable suspicion.
Further as stipulated by the Plainview Doctrine police officers have the right to seize items that are in plainview as long as they have the legal right and are positioned to see the items and may seize without warrant. Also, plainview is not categorized as a search but is an element of a valid stop, questioning and investigative state of the stop or search of a premises or home and must adhere to all three requirements as follows:
• The officer must have gained awareness of the item solely by sighting it
• The officer must be in that physical position legally
• It must be immediately apparent that it is a seizable item
As such an example of the case of Horton illustrates the purpose of probable cause as well as reasonable suspicion to search for proceeds of a robbery and weapons used in the robbery. The affidavit for warrant specified both weapons and proceeds for authorization but was issued and authorized for proceeds only. After executing and delivering the warrant proceeds were not found but weapons in plainview and were seized.
Basically the contamination in this case is the restricted purpose of the warrant and the three specifics of Plainview that must be adhered to which conditions that the officer has no purpose but what is on that warrant and any other inquiry is illegal because he is violating the Fourth Amendment, violating the owner’s privacy and expectation and right to own, and his own purpose in that structure is illegal.
Other exceptions to this doctrine are inclusive of:
• Removal of inadvertency
• Purpose and intent that is not detailed and noted properly (erroneously written and executed) (particularity requirement)
• Reasonable and Judgmental Call
• Must have warrant for Premises
• Compromised privacy does not lead to justification of utilizing Plainview Doctrine
• Questionable Ownership
• Possible Violation of the Fourth Amendment
• The validity or invalidity of the warrant affects the seizure as it renders it a use or useless (admissible or inadmissible)
These exceptions are very effective to the state of whether the Plainview Doctrine can be used, restricted and summarily viewed as a critical purpose in the allowance of evidence to compose and make a case. Further with the adherence to the three requirements and listed exceptions this will be a causal effect to act with prudence, accuracy, right and correctness.
Describe two (2) situations where you feel that strip, body cavity, or x-ray searches would be merited.
Two situations where I feel that a strip, body cavity or x-ray search would be merited would be in the case that a drug raid has been done on a “cooker”. (A cooker is the place where drugs are manufactured and wrapped for distribution and removal.)
In this case the automatic assumption is that panic causes people to hide contraband and as thus the last suspected place is on the person internally and therefore during the arrest process, booking and jailing a strip, body cavity with x-ray search would be a good call based on the merit of the situation and predictability.
Another situation would be during a valid stop without warrant and again the hiding of contraband or evidence is predictable and in that case a strip, body or x-ray may be merited.
Thank you.
Felicia
file:///C:/Users/Felicia%20McCaw/Desktop/CRJ325/PLAINVIEW%20.pdf
file:///C:/Users/Felicia%20McCaw/Desktop/CRJ325/Still%20the%20American%20Frontier-%20Fourth%20Amendment%20Litigation.pdf
http://www.ravishly.com/2014/12/11/ultimate-humiliation-what-its-be-prison-strip-searched
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I agree that the Plain View doctrine is effective when a valid stop concedes a chance to identify or sight drug paraphernalia, or guns or anything that could be termed a tool in acts of criminality. This sends up a flag to search without warrant which could involve totally dismantling the car.
I have not traveled much so the idea is really intriguing and I would like to be exposed to this just to experience being in a tube being scanned, searched with various items hidden just to try it.
Interesting isn't it a chain gang in Georgia. I always think further South, I feel for them the indignity of their position being incarcerated and searched while hot as "h" and no chance to shower and clean themselves. The psychological impact is just overwhelming to conceive people are being treated like this. I realize the purpose is security for the police staff and co-prisoners but it still is a thought I find offensive.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
Even though the Plain View Doctrine may be utilized but the fact remains that no one would allow a gun and cash to be in plain sight. First of all, they (police) have no right to enter at all without warrant...a crack in the door is all that is necessary. If a person is not trusting of strangers they don't have to open the door but speak thru it.
A noise ordinance is not a crime they (police) can only tell you to turn it down and warn next they will get a citation.
All searches whether indignant are still a necessary part of security but I don't feel that a strip, body cavity or x-ray would be necessary. A simple wand should be sufficient and not the purpose of humiliation and degradation. The other search method of "strip, body cavity or x-ray search" is routine and warranted
Thank you.
Felicia
Read the article titled, “Still the American Frontier: Fourth (4th) Amendment Litigation” located at http://wispd.org/attachments/article/220/Still%20the%20American%20Frontier-%20Fourth%20Amendment%20Litigation.pdf. Explain in your own words situations in which the plain view doctrine applies. List other exceptions to this doctrine not mentioned in the text? Please support your response.
Prior to discussing the Plainview Doctrine the stated fact of the Fourth Amendment provides the active right to privacy and the two constitutional rights that limit the powers of the police in the search and seizure. In relation to privacy and reasonable expectation two requirements are present as follows: 1) The person has right to exhibit an actual expectation of privacy and 2) The expectation is one that society view and prepare to recognize and state as reasonable. Therein comes the quandary when the effective state of the warrant issued states with specifics that the search is for a particular element and an evidential find surfaces that leads to an infringement of a subject’s Fourth Amendment’s right and reflects a provable violation then summarily the Plainview Doctrine alternatively causes a conflictual pattern that allows the permissive state to challenge any compromisable evidence seized.
Seizures are based upon with a warrant (the rule – with specifications) and without a warrant (the exception or dependent on circumstances) and as such the Plainview Doctrine covers a differing amount of scenarios which would allow the seizing of condemnatory evidence but as each scenario alternates so does the approach to seize and is conditional as each investigative strategy is acted out.
With a valid stop, the officer is allowed to seize illegal items in plainview. With an invalid stop, harassment or color or race identified can purposely cause reason to challenge an unreasonable stop, seizure and support a motion to dismiss contraband or findings. In effect the Plainview Doctrine must have probable cause which parallels to a stop that is also conditioned to reasonable suspicion.
Further as stipulated by the Plainview Doctrine police officers have the right to seize items that are in plainview as long as they have the legal right and are positioned to see the items and may seize without warrant. Also, plainview is not categorized as a search but is an element of a valid stop, questioning and investigative state of the stop or search of a premises or home and must adhere to all three requirements as follows:
• The officer must have gained awareness of the item solely by sighting it
• The officer must be in that physical position legally
• It must be immediately apparent that it is a seizable item
As such an example of the case of Horton illustrates the purpose of probable cause as well as reasonable suspicion to search for proceeds of a robbery and weapons used in the robbery. The affidavit for warrant specified both weapons and proceeds for authorization but was issued and authorized for proceeds only. After executing and delivering the warrant proceeds were not found but weapons in plainview and were seized.
Basically the contamination in this case is the restricted purpose of the warrant and the three specifics of Plainview that must be adhered to which conditions that the officer has no purpose but what is on that warrant and any other inquiry is illegal because he is violating the Fourth Amendment, violating the owner’s privacy and expectation and right to own, and his own purpose in that structure is illegal.
Other exceptions to this doctrine are inclusive of:
• Removal of inadvertency
• Purpose and intent that is not detailed and noted properly (erroneously written and executed) (particularity requirement)
• Reasonable and Judgmental Call
• Must have warrant for Premises
• Compromised privacy does not lead to justification of utilizing Plainview Doctrine
• Questionable Ownership
• Possible Violation of the Fourth Amendment
• The validity or invalidity of the warrant affects the seizure as it renders it a use or useless (admissible or inadmissible)
These exceptions are very effective to the state of whether the Plainview Doctrine can be used, restricted and summarily viewed as a critical purpose in the allowance of evidence to compose and make a case. Further with the adherence to the three requirements and listed exceptions this will be a causal effect to act with prudence, accuracy, right and correctness.
Describe two (2) situations where you feel that strip, body cavity, or x-ray searches would be merited.
Two situations where I feel that a strip, body cavity or x-ray search would be merited would be in the case that a drug raid has been done on a “cooker”. (A cooker is the place where drugs are manufactured and wrapped for distribution and removal.)
In this case the automatic assumption is that panic causes people to hide contraband and as thus the last suspected place is on the person internally and therefore during the arrest process, booking and jailing a strip, body cavity with x-ray search would be a good call based on the merit of the situation and predictability.
Another situation would be during a valid stop without warrant and again the hiding of contraband or evidence is predictable and in that case a strip, body or x-ray may be merited.
Thank you.
Felicia
file:///C:/Users/Felicia%20McCaw/Desktop/CRJ325/PLAINVIEW%20.pdf
file:///C:/Users/Felicia%20McCaw/Desktop/CRJ325/Still%20the%20American%20Frontier-%20Fourth%20Amendment%20Litigation.pdf
http://www.ravishly.com/2014/12/11/ultimate-humiliation-what-its-be-prison-strip-searched
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I agree that the Plain View doctrine is effective when a valid stop concedes a chance to identify or sight drug paraphernalia, or guns or anything that could be termed a tool in acts of criminality. This sends up a flag to search without warrant which could involve totally dismantling the car.
I have not traveled much so the idea is really intriguing and I would like to be exposed to this just to experience being in a tube being scanned, searched with various items hidden just to try it.
Interesting isn't it a chain gang in Georgia. I always think further South, I feel for them the indignity of their position being incarcerated and searched while hot as "h" and no chance to shower and clean themselves. The psychological impact is just overwhelming to conceive people are being treated like this. I realize the purpose is security for the police staff and co-prisoners but it still is a thought I find offensive.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
Even though the Plain View Doctrine may be utilized but the fact remains that no one would allow a gun and cash to be in plain sight. First of all, they (police) have no right to enter at all without warrant...a crack in the door is all that is necessary. If a person is not trusting of strangers they don't have to open the door but speak thru it.
A noise ordinance is not a crime they (police) can only tell you to turn it down and warn next they will get a citation.
All searches whether indignant are still a necessary part of security but I don't feel that a strip, body cavity or x-ray would be necessary. A simple wand should be sufficient and not the purpose of humiliation and degradation. The other search method of "strip, body cavity or x-ray search" is routine and warranted
Thank you.
Felicia
CRJ325 - WEEK 5 - DISCUSSION 5
Search and Seizures
Go to the Illinois State Bar Association Website and read the article titled, “U.S. Supreme Court Says ‘No’ to Cell-Phone Searches Incident to Arrest” located at http://www.isba.org/ibj/2014/09/ussupremecourtsays%E2%80%98no%E2%80%99cell-phonesea. Examine the court’s decision as it relates to cell phone searches incident to arrest. Based on all available information, agree or disagree with the court’s decision. Provide a rationale for your response.
After perusing the article “U.S. Supreme Court Says ‘No’ to Cell-Phone Searches Incident to Arrest”, I agree with the Court’s decision that a cell phone and contents is not an incident to arrest. Even though the compiled history, data, messages and contacts may look incriminatory it still does stand as appropriate evidence to charge and prosecute due to its unreliability, lack of standing and cohesiveness.
In summary it is too abbreviated and does not follow a coherent and thoroughly thought out purpose and in effect the details or detailing is too sketchy and does not provide an evidential trail. Further there is no rationality to conclude active street gang activity on a cell phone and therefore it follows a reasoning thought who places contributory evidence of a felony on a cell phone that would further implicate and concede to a felony.
I agree in this instance (Riley v. California) and with United v. Wurie that the causal effect does not facilitate the purpose of conducting a warrantless search due to the matter of lacking in conclusivity. Further that as stated the sheer inconceivable ability to connect a user’s cell phone to crime is distinct and must have a warrant with reasonable and probable cause to grant to associate with crime. As such any evidence garnered is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and therefore no incident to arrest either as a separate standing or as accompanying evidence.
Compare and contrast vehicle searches and inventories and indicate the most important differences between the two (2) as they relate to law enforcement officers. In your own opinion, do you feel that law enforcement officers should be allowed to conduct vehicle inventories without warrants issued by judges? Provide a rationale for your response.
A vehicle search is a conclusive search that is based upon with warrant or under exigent circumstances without warrant. Based upon differing circumstances and the protective acts of the Fourth Amendment unreasonable searches and seizures are illegal and therefore is any evidence obtained. In order to search there must be consent, probable cause, officer’s protection or in the active state of arrest. As with all acts of legality the right to say “no” is still an act of favor and position to either refuse or grant the search based upon the Fourth Amendment’s right.
But if the officer has probable cause he can search the vehicle if it relates to an APB or radio in response. A warrantless search can be conducted under the “Plain View” doctrine which establishes a stance for further search and seizures as it allows the continued search and probable cause. An inventory search is a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle by the police. It is different from a vehicle search because its purpose is to make an accounting of contents and not a search for evidence. The purpose is to protect the officer and owner as to the found contents and further prevent exposure to dangerous items hidden or located inside the vehicle.
The differences between the two is first the warrantless vehicle search is an active search for incriminating evidence based upon probable cause whereas an inventory search is a protective measure for the police and owner of the impounded vehicle to prevent claims of misdoings and theft.
In my opinion, in order to protect self (police and department) and owner of impounded vehicle I feel that the procedure should be continued based upon a warrantless state since it is not an act of search but an accounting and therefore it does not need a warrant. With that thought in mind, comes the conclusion that it is a correct state of right and fairness to all interested parties.
Thank you.
Felicia
https://www.isba.org/ibj/2014/09/ussupremecourtsays%e2%80%98no%e2%80%99cell-phonesea
http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2014/07/cell-phone-search-incident-to-arrest.aspx
http://traffic.findlaw.com/traffic-stops/vehicle-searches.html
http://traffic.findlaw.com/traffic-stops/vehicle-search-and-seizure.html
http://www.minicklaw.com/inventory-search-vehicle-legal/
www.mopca.com/mpca.nsf/str/BC02F4E07567FC50862577E3006CCABC/$file... ·
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I disagree with the enormous amount of information flowing through a smart phone it is impossible to use a cell phone as a guarantee because it can be easily stolen and compromised. A cell phone is not reliable evidence because they cannot obtain a probable cause or have a reasonable suspicion.
I agree with your points but I feel that the inventory is done to protect the officer and department from lawsuits and protect the owner's belongings. If the owner or driver of the vehicle is arrested then the car must be searched without warrant and the contents inventoried. Further if evidence turns out to be of a criminal nature then it must be used in a case against the owner or the occupant or the driver (or all)..
Thank you.
Felicia
Go to the Illinois State Bar Association Website and read the article titled, “U.S. Supreme Court Says ‘No’ to Cell-Phone Searches Incident to Arrest” located at http://www.isba.org/ibj/2014/09/ussupremecourtsays%E2%80%98no%E2%80%99cell-phonesea. Examine the court’s decision as it relates to cell phone searches incident to arrest. Based on all available information, agree or disagree with the court’s decision. Provide a rationale for your response.
After perusing the article “U.S. Supreme Court Says ‘No’ to Cell-Phone Searches Incident to Arrest”, I agree with the Court’s decision that a cell phone and contents is not an incident to arrest. Even though the compiled history, data, messages and contacts may look incriminatory it still does stand as appropriate evidence to charge and prosecute due to its unreliability, lack of standing and cohesiveness.
In summary it is too abbreviated and does not follow a coherent and thoroughly thought out purpose and in effect the details or detailing is too sketchy and does not provide an evidential trail. Further there is no rationality to conclude active street gang activity on a cell phone and therefore it follows a reasoning thought who places contributory evidence of a felony on a cell phone that would further implicate and concede to a felony.
I agree in this instance (Riley v. California) and with United v. Wurie that the causal effect does not facilitate the purpose of conducting a warrantless search due to the matter of lacking in conclusivity. Further that as stated the sheer inconceivable ability to connect a user’s cell phone to crime is distinct and must have a warrant with reasonable and probable cause to grant to associate with crime. As such any evidence garnered is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and therefore no incident to arrest either as a separate standing or as accompanying evidence.
Compare and contrast vehicle searches and inventories and indicate the most important differences between the two (2) as they relate to law enforcement officers. In your own opinion, do you feel that law enforcement officers should be allowed to conduct vehicle inventories without warrants issued by judges? Provide a rationale for your response.
A vehicle search is a conclusive search that is based upon with warrant or under exigent circumstances without warrant. Based upon differing circumstances and the protective acts of the Fourth Amendment unreasonable searches and seizures are illegal and therefore is any evidence obtained. In order to search there must be consent, probable cause, officer’s protection or in the active state of arrest. As with all acts of legality the right to say “no” is still an act of favor and position to either refuse or grant the search based upon the Fourth Amendment’s right.
But if the officer has probable cause he can search the vehicle if it relates to an APB or radio in response. A warrantless search can be conducted under the “Plain View” doctrine which establishes a stance for further search and seizures as it allows the continued search and probable cause. An inventory search is a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle by the police. It is different from a vehicle search because its purpose is to make an accounting of contents and not a search for evidence. The purpose is to protect the officer and owner as to the found contents and further prevent exposure to dangerous items hidden or located inside the vehicle.
The differences between the two is first the warrantless vehicle search is an active search for incriminating evidence based upon probable cause whereas an inventory search is a protective measure for the police and owner of the impounded vehicle to prevent claims of misdoings and theft.
In my opinion, in order to protect self (police and department) and owner of impounded vehicle I feel that the procedure should be continued based upon a warrantless state since it is not an act of search but an accounting and therefore it does not need a warrant. With that thought in mind, comes the conclusion that it is a correct state of right and fairness to all interested parties.
Thank you.
Felicia
https://www.isba.org/ibj/2014/09/ussupremecourtsays%e2%80%98no%e2%80%99cell-phonesea
http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2014/07/cell-phone-search-incident-to-arrest.aspx
http://traffic.findlaw.com/traffic-stops/vehicle-searches.html
http://traffic.findlaw.com/traffic-stops/vehicle-search-and-seizure.html
http://www.minicklaw.com/inventory-search-vehicle-legal/
www.mopca.com/mpca.nsf/str/BC02F4E07567FC50862577E3006CCABC/$file... ·
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I disagree with the enormous amount of information flowing through a smart phone it is impossible to use a cell phone as a guarantee because it can be easily stolen and compromised. A cell phone is not reliable evidence because they cannot obtain a probable cause or have a reasonable suspicion.
I agree with your points but I feel that the inventory is done to protect the officer and department from lawsuits and protect the owner's belongings. If the owner or driver of the vehicle is arrested then the car must be searched without warrant and the contents inventoried. Further if evidence turns out to be of a criminal nature then it must be used in a case against the owner or the occupant or the driver (or all)..
Thank you.
Felicia
CRJ325 - WEEK 4 - DISCUSSION 4
"Arrests and Use of Force"
Go to the PoliceChief’s Website and read the article titled, “Chief's Counsel: Police Use of Force: The Problem of Passive Resistance” located at http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=563&issue_id=42005. Recommend the two (2) most import factors you believe law enforcement officers should consider when using force in instances that individuals are passively resisting. Provide a rationale for your response.
In the deciding of the level of force, nondeadly or deadly, to be used the Constitution of the United States as particularly relating to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, state laws which is usually the penal code or code of criminal procedure, defines when an office may or may not legally use force, judicial decision which assist in the deciding of what type of force can be used and when and lastly departmental or agency rules or guidelines.
Based upon these guidelines two important factors that law enforcement should consider when the need for the level of force may be evaluated when individuals are passively resisting pertain first to determining if the active state of being passive can be changed and become aggressive or deadly.
Passive resistance is described as when the subject is not complying with an officer’s command and is uncooperative but is effectively using minimum physical action to prevent an officer from placing them in custody, securing them and placing them in the squad car.
Steps in dealing with passive resistance include as follows:
1. Principle of mass – 2:1 ratio of officers to arrestee
2. Control Hold (rear wrist lock)
3. Physically placing arrestee in squad car with handcuffs
4. Pepper spray – although still under debate but may be used
Due to the nature of passive resistance ability to change it moves the level of force and increases the variables in dealing with party to be arrested. As such the use of force is a last resort as well as the appropriate choice to utilize. Therefore, an involved officer(s) will determine if there is an imminent threat and whether a low level force should be applied or if it should be raised to intermediate force of if non-deadly force will be sufficient to control the situation which is equitable to reasonable force.
Purpose of Choice
Reasonable Force
1. To protect themselves
2. To protect others
3. To affect a lawful detention
4. To affect a lawful arrest
5. To conduct a lawful search
The determining of reasonable force is connected to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution that allows a police officer to use force as is “objectively reasonable” under all of the circumstances. Further, evaluation include the reasonable inquiry in reviewing the use of force is objective and reasonable based on the officer’s perusal of occurring circumstances as follows:
1. Severity of crime or offense
2. Subject threat to officer or others
3. Subject actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade
4. Influence of drugs or alcohol or mental capacity of subject
5. Time available to an officer
6. Availability of officers or resources to defuse and ice the situation down
7. Proximity or access of weapons to subject
8. Environmental factors or other exigent circumstances
If the situation spirals upward and changes from passive to active resistance or even to a level of aggression that may need an alternate level of force three availabilities become optional to deal with a situation that progressed from passive to a danger to self and the officer. As follows are additional levels of resistance and the force to deal with each scenario as follows:
Active Resistance – the subject’s verbal or physical actions are intended to prevent the officer from placing the subject in custody and taking control but are not necessarily directed at harming the officer.
Low Level Force – This entails the level of control necessary to interact with a subject that is compliant or displaying Passive or Active Resistance.
1. Officer Presence
2. Verbal Communication
3. Empty Hand Tactics (Takedowns)
4. Handcuffs/Other LVMPD Approved Restraint Devices
5. Baton (As escort tool)
6. LVNR® (Level One – minimum restraint)
7. K-9 – (No bites)
8. Pinching
9. Blocking
Aggressive Resistance – the subject displays the intent to harm the officer, themselves or another person and prevent the officer from placing them in custody and taking control.
Intermediate Force - This entails the level of force to compel compliance by a subject displaying Aggressive Resistance which is neither likely nor intended to cause death.
1. Empty Hand Tactics (Takedowns with injury, Strikes, Kicks)
2. Baton/Impact Weapons (Jabs, Strikes)
3. LVNR® (Level Two – medium restraint; and 3-maximum restraint)
4. OC Spray
5. ECD
6. Low Lethality Shotgun (five yards or greater)
7. K-9 – (with bites)
8. P.I.T. (Speeds 40 mph or below)
Aggravated Aggressive Resistance – the subject’s action reveal a likelihood that death or serious bodily injury will occur for the officer, themselves or another. These acts of harm may result from a firearm, use of blunt or bladed weapon, and extreme physical force.
Deadly Force – This level of force is the degree of force which is likely to produce death or serious bodily injury. This type of force can also result if used inappropriately or improperly applied in death and is not limited to the use of firearms.
1. Baton/Impact Weapons (Jabs, Strikes)
2. Low Lethality Shotgun (fired at a distance less than five yards)
3. P.I.T. (More than 40mph
4. Ramming
5. Firearm Use
In relation to the parameters for the use of Deadly Force an officer may use this type of force upon another person when it is objectively reasonable to protect himself or others from what is reasonably believed to be an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. Prevent the escape of a fleeing felon who the officer has probable cause to believe has committed a violent felonious crime and is an imminent threat to human life if escape should occur.
There are four elements of Deadly Force as follows:
1. Ability – This exists when a person has the means or capability to cause grave injury, serious bodily harm or death to an officer or another.
2. Opportunity – This exist when a person is in a position to effectively resist an officer’s control or to use force or violence upon the officer or another.
3. Imminent Jeopardy – Upon the factual nature and circumstances confronting the officer, the officer reasonably believes the subject poses an imminent danger to the life or the officer(s) or other third parties and the officer must act immediately to prevent death or serious bodily injury.
4. Preclusion – Based upon all other lesser alternatives have been reasonably considered and exhausted prior to the use of deadly force, to include disengagement. As such deadly force in response to the subject’s action must remain reasonable while based upon the totality of the circumstances known to the officer as the time force was applied.
Analyze the interrogation and questioning process that law enforcement officers can conduct after a justifiable arrest. In your own opinion, determine whether or not you believe these processes restrain officials from obtaining information related to crimes, please include in your thoughts how the Miranda rights relate to your ideas. Justify your answer.
The interrogation and questioning process is an intriguing and relative complexity due to the fact that it is reflectively challenging to obtain correct details, reliable testimony or confession, good rapport and the trust of the subject to be interrogated and questioned.
Prior to the interrogation and questioning the subject must undergo the arrest phase which summarily include four elements of arrest as follows:
• Seizure and detention
• Intention to arrest
• Arrest authority
• The understanding of the individual
that he or she is being arrested.
A suspect is in custody in two situations:
1. When the suspect is under arrest or
2. When the suspect is not under arrest but is “deprived of freedom in a significant way.”
The suspect(s) has four constitutional rights during this process as follows known as the 4 R’s:
• Right to counsel
• Right to due process
• Right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Right to protection against self-incrimination
• Note: Rights to counsel and due process apply in lineups, showups, and photographic identification, but the rights to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and self-incrimination do not.
Prior to either the custodial interrogation or questioning stage is the required given Miranda Warning (four warnings) which provides protection for the suspect or accused as well as the police officer as follows:
• You have a right to remain silent.
• Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.
• You have a right to the presence of an attorney.
• If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you prior to questioning.
• Almost all law enforcement departments in the United States add a fifth warning which is not required: “You have the right to terminate this interview at any time.”
The right to waive these rights is available as follows:
“After… warnings have been given, and such opportunity [to exercise these rights] afforded him or her, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement.
Questioning Phase
This is the stage wherein the questioning of a perk (suspicious party or subject) is allowable but does not require the reading of the Miranda Rights because it is a primarily stage which may be founded on probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
But if the need to question regarding an acknowledged crime has been done and it is relatively documented then the reading of the Miranda Rights must be done based upon the Fourth Amendment that protects individual rights as well as the police officer.
Interrogation Phase
This is the stage wherein the interrogation is done at the station and is in fact a custodial interrogation that is held in the station but the interrogator must inform the subject(s) of his rights prior to any intensive questioning that may self-incriminate or violate his right due to lack of counsel. In order to protect the subject and officers the recording of these custodial interviews protects all by the disallowing of charges of misconduct, intimidation and intentional play against the subject in custody as follows:
• Protects against baseless charges of improper police conduct.
• This makes it easier for some suspects to confess, because many of them find it easier to admit verbally to committing a crime, rather than writing out or signing a written confession.
• This deters charges of improper police conduct during custodial interviews.
• These recordings increase public trust in police conduct because they show that the police have nothing to hide.
Both the questioning and interrogation phases help therein in the policing activity by allowing respect for the subject as well as the act of fairness because the methodology is not based on an act of entrapment but on the quest for the truth. In that quest is for facts and the ascertaining of whether the subject is indeed an active ingredient in the crime and as such a suspect. With that thought in mind this controls discriminatory actions, racial profiling and racial pick for any crime in the area by police officers and the active way information is garnered, probed for and sought due to the adhering of the Miranda rights and the controlled nature of the custodial questioning and interrogating.
Thank you.
Felicia
References:
The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
6/002.00 USE OF FORCE A.S. 1.2.2, 1.2.7, 1.3.1 through 1.3.8
http://www.norton-ramirezlaw.com/police-vs-resisters-proper-type-force/
http://www.norton-ramirezlaw.com/examining-police-interrogation-techniques-defining-interrogation-2/
http://www.worldcat.org/title/passive-resister-response-what-is-considered-reasonable-use-of-force-in-police-encounters-with-passive-resisters/oclc/858815523
http://www.policemag.com/photogallery/photos/231/handling-passive-resisters.aspx
Carmen, R.V. D. (2014). Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice, 9th Edition. [Strayer University Bookshelf]. Retrieved from https://strayer.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305840799/
RESPONSE TO CO-STUDENT
I agree that the level of force is a danger as well as a parallel to hostility toward civilians. One reason I believe that punitive force can surface is because of the quickness of change from passive to active and then aggressive and ultimately dangerous resistance. Sometimes due to the escalation and danger to the officer they have no choice but to react to changing territory that can be actively become quicksand in a second and death to the officer.
These scenarios are active and uncontrolled, unpredictable and high acceleration rides of hate for the law, officer and sometimes a death trap for all. They have to react, judge and gauge as with the blinking of an eye. There is no time to debate they are there by themselves! Call it as it goes!
Thank you.
Felicia
Go to the PoliceChief’s Website and read the article titled, “Chief's Counsel: Police Use of Force: The Problem of Passive Resistance” located at http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=563&issue_id=42005. Recommend the two (2) most import factors you believe law enforcement officers should consider when using force in instances that individuals are passively resisting. Provide a rationale for your response.
In the deciding of the level of force, nondeadly or deadly, to be used the Constitution of the United States as particularly relating to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, state laws which is usually the penal code or code of criminal procedure, defines when an office may or may not legally use force, judicial decision which assist in the deciding of what type of force can be used and when and lastly departmental or agency rules or guidelines.
Based upon these guidelines two important factors that law enforcement should consider when the need for the level of force may be evaluated when individuals are passively resisting pertain first to determining if the active state of being passive can be changed and become aggressive or deadly.
Passive resistance is described as when the subject is not complying with an officer’s command and is uncooperative but is effectively using minimum physical action to prevent an officer from placing them in custody, securing them and placing them in the squad car.
Steps in dealing with passive resistance include as follows:
1. Principle of mass – 2:1 ratio of officers to arrestee
2. Control Hold (rear wrist lock)
3. Physically placing arrestee in squad car with handcuffs
4. Pepper spray – although still under debate but may be used
Due to the nature of passive resistance ability to change it moves the level of force and increases the variables in dealing with party to be arrested. As such the use of force is a last resort as well as the appropriate choice to utilize. Therefore, an involved officer(s) will determine if there is an imminent threat and whether a low level force should be applied or if it should be raised to intermediate force of if non-deadly force will be sufficient to control the situation which is equitable to reasonable force.
Purpose of Choice
Reasonable Force
1. To protect themselves
2. To protect others
3. To affect a lawful detention
4. To affect a lawful arrest
5. To conduct a lawful search
The determining of reasonable force is connected to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution that allows a police officer to use force as is “objectively reasonable” under all of the circumstances. Further, evaluation include the reasonable inquiry in reviewing the use of force is objective and reasonable based on the officer’s perusal of occurring circumstances as follows:
1. Severity of crime or offense
2. Subject threat to officer or others
3. Subject actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade
4. Influence of drugs or alcohol or mental capacity of subject
5. Time available to an officer
6. Availability of officers or resources to defuse and ice the situation down
7. Proximity or access of weapons to subject
8. Environmental factors or other exigent circumstances
If the situation spirals upward and changes from passive to active resistance or even to a level of aggression that may need an alternate level of force three availabilities become optional to deal with a situation that progressed from passive to a danger to self and the officer. As follows are additional levels of resistance and the force to deal with each scenario as follows:
Active Resistance – the subject’s verbal or physical actions are intended to prevent the officer from placing the subject in custody and taking control but are not necessarily directed at harming the officer.
Low Level Force – This entails the level of control necessary to interact with a subject that is compliant or displaying Passive or Active Resistance.
1. Officer Presence
2. Verbal Communication
3. Empty Hand Tactics (Takedowns)
4. Handcuffs/Other LVMPD Approved Restraint Devices
5. Baton (As escort tool)
6. LVNR® (Level One – minimum restraint)
7. K-9 – (No bites)
8. Pinching
9. Blocking
Aggressive Resistance – the subject displays the intent to harm the officer, themselves or another person and prevent the officer from placing them in custody and taking control.
Intermediate Force - This entails the level of force to compel compliance by a subject displaying Aggressive Resistance which is neither likely nor intended to cause death.
1. Empty Hand Tactics (Takedowns with injury, Strikes, Kicks)
2. Baton/Impact Weapons (Jabs, Strikes)
3. LVNR® (Level Two – medium restraint; and 3-maximum restraint)
4. OC Spray
5. ECD
6. Low Lethality Shotgun (five yards or greater)
7. K-9 – (with bites)
8. P.I.T. (Speeds 40 mph or below)
Aggravated Aggressive Resistance – the subject’s action reveal a likelihood that death or serious bodily injury will occur for the officer, themselves or another. These acts of harm may result from a firearm, use of blunt or bladed weapon, and extreme physical force.
Deadly Force – This level of force is the degree of force which is likely to produce death or serious bodily injury. This type of force can also result if used inappropriately or improperly applied in death and is not limited to the use of firearms.
1. Baton/Impact Weapons (Jabs, Strikes)
2. Low Lethality Shotgun (fired at a distance less than five yards)
3. P.I.T. (More than 40mph
4. Ramming
5. Firearm Use
In relation to the parameters for the use of Deadly Force an officer may use this type of force upon another person when it is objectively reasonable to protect himself or others from what is reasonably believed to be an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. Prevent the escape of a fleeing felon who the officer has probable cause to believe has committed a violent felonious crime and is an imminent threat to human life if escape should occur.
There are four elements of Deadly Force as follows:
1. Ability – This exists when a person has the means or capability to cause grave injury, serious bodily harm or death to an officer or another.
2. Opportunity – This exist when a person is in a position to effectively resist an officer’s control or to use force or violence upon the officer or another.
3. Imminent Jeopardy – Upon the factual nature and circumstances confronting the officer, the officer reasonably believes the subject poses an imminent danger to the life or the officer(s) or other third parties and the officer must act immediately to prevent death or serious bodily injury.
4. Preclusion – Based upon all other lesser alternatives have been reasonably considered and exhausted prior to the use of deadly force, to include disengagement. As such deadly force in response to the subject’s action must remain reasonable while based upon the totality of the circumstances known to the officer as the time force was applied.
Analyze the interrogation and questioning process that law enforcement officers can conduct after a justifiable arrest. In your own opinion, determine whether or not you believe these processes restrain officials from obtaining information related to crimes, please include in your thoughts how the Miranda rights relate to your ideas. Justify your answer.
The interrogation and questioning process is an intriguing and relative complexity due to the fact that it is reflectively challenging to obtain correct details, reliable testimony or confession, good rapport and the trust of the subject to be interrogated and questioned.
Prior to the interrogation and questioning the subject must undergo the arrest phase which summarily include four elements of arrest as follows:
• Seizure and detention
• Intention to arrest
• Arrest authority
• The understanding of the individual
that he or she is being arrested.
A suspect is in custody in two situations:
1. When the suspect is under arrest or
2. When the suspect is not under arrest but is “deprived of freedom in a significant way.”
The suspect(s) has four constitutional rights during this process as follows known as the 4 R’s:
• Right to counsel
• Right to due process
• Right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Right to protection against self-incrimination
• Note: Rights to counsel and due process apply in lineups, showups, and photographic identification, but the rights to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and self-incrimination do not.
Prior to either the custodial interrogation or questioning stage is the required given Miranda Warning (four warnings) which provides protection for the suspect or accused as well as the police officer as follows:
• You have a right to remain silent.
• Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.
• You have a right to the presence of an attorney.
• If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you prior to questioning.
• Almost all law enforcement departments in the United States add a fifth warning which is not required: “You have the right to terminate this interview at any time.”
The right to waive these rights is available as follows:
“After… warnings have been given, and such opportunity [to exercise these rights] afforded him or her, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement.
Questioning Phase
This is the stage wherein the questioning of a perk (suspicious party or subject) is allowable but does not require the reading of the Miranda Rights because it is a primarily stage which may be founded on probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
But if the need to question regarding an acknowledged crime has been done and it is relatively documented then the reading of the Miranda Rights must be done based upon the Fourth Amendment that protects individual rights as well as the police officer.
Interrogation Phase
This is the stage wherein the interrogation is done at the station and is in fact a custodial interrogation that is held in the station but the interrogator must inform the subject(s) of his rights prior to any intensive questioning that may self-incriminate or violate his right due to lack of counsel. In order to protect the subject and officers the recording of these custodial interviews protects all by the disallowing of charges of misconduct, intimidation and intentional play against the subject in custody as follows:
• Protects against baseless charges of improper police conduct.
• This makes it easier for some suspects to confess, because many of them find it easier to admit verbally to committing a crime, rather than writing out or signing a written confession.
• This deters charges of improper police conduct during custodial interviews.
• These recordings increase public trust in police conduct because they show that the police have nothing to hide.
Both the questioning and interrogation phases help therein in the policing activity by allowing respect for the subject as well as the act of fairness because the methodology is not based on an act of entrapment but on the quest for the truth. In that quest is for facts and the ascertaining of whether the subject is indeed an active ingredient in the crime and as such a suspect. With that thought in mind this controls discriminatory actions, racial profiling and racial pick for any crime in the area by police officers and the active way information is garnered, probed for and sought due to the adhering of the Miranda rights and the controlled nature of the custodial questioning and interrogating.
Thank you.
Felicia
References:
The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
6/002.00 USE OF FORCE A.S. 1.2.2, 1.2.7, 1.3.1 through 1.3.8
http://www.norton-ramirezlaw.com/police-vs-resisters-proper-type-force/
http://www.norton-ramirezlaw.com/examining-police-interrogation-techniques-defining-interrogation-2/
http://www.worldcat.org/title/passive-resister-response-what-is-considered-reasonable-use-of-force-in-police-encounters-with-passive-resisters/oclc/858815523
http://www.policemag.com/photogallery/photos/231/handling-passive-resisters.aspx
Carmen, R.V. D. (2014). Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice, 9th Edition. [Strayer University Bookshelf]. Retrieved from https://strayer.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305840799/
RESPONSE TO CO-STUDENT
I agree that the level of force is a danger as well as a parallel to hostility toward civilians. One reason I believe that punitive force can surface is because of the quickness of change from passive to active and then aggressive and ultimately dangerous resistance. Sometimes due to the escalation and danger to the officer they have no choice but to react to changing territory that can be actively become quicksand in a second and death to the officer.
These scenarios are active and uncontrolled, unpredictable and high acceleration rides of hate for the law, officer and sometimes a death trap for all. They have to react, judge and gauge as with the blinking of an eye. There is no time to debate they are there by themselves! Call it as it goes!
Thank you.
Felicia
CRJ325 - WEEK 3 - DISCUSSION 3
"Interpreting the Exclusionary Rule"
Watch the video titled, “The Exclusionary Rule for Dummies – Mapp v Ohio and the 4th Amendment” (11 min 12 s). You can also view the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cID59vrAY0M. Next, examine two (2) exceptions to the rule. Provide your opinion as to whether or not you believe that each of these exceptions is constitutional.
Exception to the rule are inclusive of 1) Good faith exception and its many variations, 2) The inevitable discovery exception, 3) The purged taint exception and 4) The independent source exception. In relation to the good faith exception this manner of approach is constitutional as long as the error is not committed by the police officer and there is no infringement of fairness or rights that may be racially motivated, bias, bigotry or hate to make arrests.
In the case of Mapp v Ohio, inevitable discovery exception is a variable and aspect that supports the act of questioning then act of pat and frisk and ultimate discovery of weapons. Therefore, in regard to this case reasonable suspicion was based on behavioralisms and active physical movements that confirmed a need to stop, question and frisk. Next, is the good faith exception that is also an allowable principle in this case because it is also based on reasonable suspicion and is admissible due to honest inquiry, pat and frisk and subsequent discovery.
Viewing the inevitable and the good faith exception with the exclusionary rule allows a supportive base to not only protect all parties rights but it is considerably accurate in preventing a violation of the Fourth Amendment that prevents unreasonable search and seizure that would therefore taint the evidence garnered.
Further in my opinion both are of these exceptions and are constitutional and work with fidelity and as a complement to uphold fairness, avoid entrapment and render the service of corrective policing to foil crimes, and help restructure policy and community to uphold the law.
Based on the information found in this chapter related to stop and frisk, examine two (2) actions as they relate to the fourth (4th) amendment and the arrest process. In your opinion, which should have the greatest constitutional protection, stop or frisk? Provide a rationale for your response.
As per the information found, two actions as they relate to the Fourth Amendment and arrest process are the stop and frisk. Both have constitutional protection – one for the perk (suspicious party) and one for the officer. Therefore, the stop is to ascertain if a criminal act has ensued or is ensuing. The act of frisking is not only for police protection and populace but it can also open the inquiry as to whether a concealed weapon is upon the perk which may be a danger to the populace or an additive to an act of crime or an act of aggression toward a policeman.
Example of Stop and Frisk
Terry v Ohio
Based upon this case, regulations and guidelines were stipulated to have policy changed and adapted to ensure the validity of the stop and frisk that adheres to the Exclusionary Rule and the Fourth Amendment.
In my opinion the ability to stop and question is the greatest constitutional protection because it allows the ability to address suspicious activity that occurs when policing authority arrives. There is no infringement for a stop and inquiry. The frisk is a more complicated procedure that can cause found evidence to either be allowed or dismissed. Therefore, it has to be done correctly and by the guidelines (the book) with all “I’s” dotted and all “T’s” crossed. Further as a scenario unwinds so does the prevalency of difficulty and exactness of staying within the rights granted to the police officers and rights guaranteed to the populace.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I agree with the possibility that the evidence may be admitted but without probable cause this could lead to a charge of harassment, racial profiling and may entail a serious fight on their hands. The legality of the manner to me must be sufficient to warrant and if warrant is not granted therefore as with common sense the noted eventual thought is that all evidence obtained can be motioned to dismiss.
Even though the inevitable discovery is proposed to be used still the act or discovery would never have been found because this was and is a violation of constitutional rights of privacy with the Fourth Amendment leading first in protest, secondly the Fourteenth Amendment would rears its head to protect privacy and help control the activities of government and circumvent taping or tracking unless confirmed by reasonable suspicion and probable cause with documentation of evidential wrong.
Otherwise, I agree with your point on the "stop".
Thank you.
Felicia
Watch the video titled, “The Exclusionary Rule for Dummies – Mapp v Ohio and the 4th Amendment” (11 min 12 s). You can also view the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cID59vrAY0M. Next, examine two (2) exceptions to the rule. Provide your opinion as to whether or not you believe that each of these exceptions is constitutional.
Exception to the rule are inclusive of 1) Good faith exception and its many variations, 2) The inevitable discovery exception, 3) The purged taint exception and 4) The independent source exception. In relation to the good faith exception this manner of approach is constitutional as long as the error is not committed by the police officer and there is no infringement of fairness or rights that may be racially motivated, bias, bigotry or hate to make arrests.
In the case of Mapp v Ohio, inevitable discovery exception is a variable and aspect that supports the act of questioning then act of pat and frisk and ultimate discovery of weapons. Therefore, in regard to this case reasonable suspicion was based on behavioralisms and active physical movements that confirmed a need to stop, question and frisk. Next, is the good faith exception that is also an allowable principle in this case because it is also based on reasonable suspicion and is admissible due to honest inquiry, pat and frisk and subsequent discovery.
Viewing the inevitable and the good faith exception with the exclusionary rule allows a supportive base to not only protect all parties rights but it is considerably accurate in preventing a violation of the Fourth Amendment that prevents unreasonable search and seizure that would therefore taint the evidence garnered.
Further in my opinion both are of these exceptions and are constitutional and work with fidelity and as a complement to uphold fairness, avoid entrapment and render the service of corrective policing to foil crimes, and help restructure policy and community to uphold the law.
Based on the information found in this chapter related to stop and frisk, examine two (2) actions as they relate to the fourth (4th) amendment and the arrest process. In your opinion, which should have the greatest constitutional protection, stop or frisk? Provide a rationale for your response.
As per the information found, two actions as they relate to the Fourth Amendment and arrest process are the stop and frisk. Both have constitutional protection – one for the perk (suspicious party) and one for the officer. Therefore, the stop is to ascertain if a criminal act has ensued or is ensuing. The act of frisking is not only for police protection and populace but it can also open the inquiry as to whether a concealed weapon is upon the perk which may be a danger to the populace or an additive to an act of crime or an act of aggression toward a policeman.
Example of Stop and Frisk
Terry v Ohio
Based upon this case, regulations and guidelines were stipulated to have policy changed and adapted to ensure the validity of the stop and frisk that adheres to the Exclusionary Rule and the Fourth Amendment.
In my opinion the ability to stop and question is the greatest constitutional protection because it allows the ability to address suspicious activity that occurs when policing authority arrives. There is no infringement for a stop and inquiry. The frisk is a more complicated procedure that can cause found evidence to either be allowed or dismissed. Therefore, it has to be done correctly and by the guidelines (the book) with all “I’s” dotted and all “T’s” crossed. Further as a scenario unwinds so does the prevalency of difficulty and exactness of staying within the rights granted to the police officers and rights guaranteed to the populace.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I agree with the possibility that the evidence may be admitted but without probable cause this could lead to a charge of harassment, racial profiling and may entail a serious fight on their hands. The legality of the manner to me must be sufficient to warrant and if warrant is not granted therefore as with common sense the noted eventual thought is that all evidence obtained can be motioned to dismiss.
Even though the inevitable discovery is proposed to be used still the act or discovery would never have been found because this was and is a violation of constitutional rights of privacy with the Fourth Amendment leading first in protest, secondly the Fourteenth Amendment would rears its head to protect privacy and help control the activities of government and circumvent taping or tracking unless confirmed by reasonable suspicion and probable cause with documentation of evidential wrong.
Otherwise, I agree with your point on the "stop".
Thank you.
Felicia
CRJ325 - WEEK 2 - DISCUSSION 2
"Establishing Probable Cause"
Go to the Legal Update Online Website, located at http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/131, and research the latest case law concerning probable cause and law enforcement officials. In your own words, discuss the possible changes you see coming in this area as it relates to the Bill of Rights. Provide a rationale for your response.
Example
U.S. vs Black
This case is based as an appeals case and relates to the latest laws being utilized that relates to probable cause and was held in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals situated in Richmond. The inexplicable right to establish probable cause is significantly a challenge to judge or gauge a situation correctly. In relation to this scenario the viewing of race is predominantly a noticeable challenge when using suspicion as a prevalent motive to decide that probable cause is equitable and transferable. Racial profiling was the active component used to make a determination to follow, pursue and assume incorrectness was afoot.
Proceeding to call for back-up and confronting with no claim or observable confirmation the primary thought was drug activity based upon race because he sat at the gas station for three minutes.
But after interacting and confirming authentic right to carry gun and too personal discourse ensued, personal thought and assumption prevailed and an illegal search and pat down proceeded. Without suspicion or probable cause there was no right to invade or conquer space of citizens standing and talking in a group. Based on the protective statute the Fourth Amendment allows and restricts the ability to harass, hinder or intimidate or unlawfully search based on demographics, race or positioning of individual in area not usually known.
Therefore, the correct presentation is always work upon the theory of probable cause and not bias, discrimination, or color or race orientation. Consequently, the exclusionary rule prevails and the evidence of carrying a weapon without license is a void, mute charge without right based on consensus of right policy to follow.
Compare and contrast the concepts of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. In your own words, determine the relationship between the two (2) concepts as they relate to search and seizure.
Probable cause is the notation of following an act based on theory of following a claim or act of criminality is effectively ensued. Whereas reasonable suspicion is based upon confirmation that criminal activity is occurring with the individual as an internal part of the crime.
In regard to both probable cause and reasonable suspicion both are actively based upon the possibility that a crime has been done, evidential find must be correctly done based on rules of procedure with regard to Amendments of the Bill of Rights.
But reasonable suspicion is considered less than probable cause but must be based upon facts and connected with an individual but overall it is grounded in rational logic, gauging a situation and determination.
In play both acts as controls in the right to search and seize and as such procedures have to changed and adjusted to accommodate acts of fairness and legitimacy. As based, correctness is prevailed upon correct acts of thought and reading the act, the play and acting according within the bounds of the law.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
Based on the tip the stakeout is appropriate as well as verification for warrant, raid, seizure and arrest of all participants found inside.
Also, I agree with the restrictions on reasonable suspicion and probable cause and its prevalent changes that are needed to adjust to new scenarios. Also, it was a great read.
Thank you.
Felicia
Go to the Legal Update Online Website, located at http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/131, and research the latest case law concerning probable cause and law enforcement officials. In your own words, discuss the possible changes you see coming in this area as it relates to the Bill of Rights. Provide a rationale for your response.
Example
U.S. vs Black
This case is based as an appeals case and relates to the latest laws being utilized that relates to probable cause and was held in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals situated in Richmond. The inexplicable right to establish probable cause is significantly a challenge to judge or gauge a situation correctly. In relation to this scenario the viewing of race is predominantly a noticeable challenge when using suspicion as a prevalent motive to decide that probable cause is equitable and transferable. Racial profiling was the active component used to make a determination to follow, pursue and assume incorrectness was afoot.
Proceeding to call for back-up and confronting with no claim or observable confirmation the primary thought was drug activity based upon race because he sat at the gas station for three minutes.
But after interacting and confirming authentic right to carry gun and too personal discourse ensued, personal thought and assumption prevailed and an illegal search and pat down proceeded. Without suspicion or probable cause there was no right to invade or conquer space of citizens standing and talking in a group. Based on the protective statute the Fourth Amendment allows and restricts the ability to harass, hinder or intimidate or unlawfully search based on demographics, race or positioning of individual in area not usually known.
Therefore, the correct presentation is always work upon the theory of probable cause and not bias, discrimination, or color or race orientation. Consequently, the exclusionary rule prevails and the evidence of carrying a weapon without license is a void, mute charge without right based on consensus of right policy to follow.
Compare and contrast the concepts of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. In your own words, determine the relationship between the two (2) concepts as they relate to search and seizure.
Probable cause is the notation of following an act based on theory of following a claim or act of criminality is effectively ensued. Whereas reasonable suspicion is based upon confirmation that criminal activity is occurring with the individual as an internal part of the crime.
In regard to both probable cause and reasonable suspicion both are actively based upon the possibility that a crime has been done, evidential find must be correctly done based on rules of procedure with regard to Amendments of the Bill of Rights.
But reasonable suspicion is considered less than probable cause but must be based upon facts and connected with an individual but overall it is grounded in rational logic, gauging a situation and determination.
In play both acts as controls in the right to search and seize and as such procedures have to changed and adjusted to accommodate acts of fairness and legitimacy. As based, correctness is prevailed upon correct acts of thought and reading the act, the play and acting according within the bounds of the law.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
Based on the tip the stakeout is appropriate as well as verification for warrant, raid, seizure and arrest of all participants found inside.
Also, I agree with the restrictions on reasonable suspicion and probable cause and its prevalent changes that are needed to adjust to new scenarios. Also, it was a great read.
Thank you.
Felicia
CRJ325 - WEEK 1 - DISCUSSION 1
"The Criminal Justice Process"
Go to the Lawyers Website and review the article titled, “The Criminal Justice Process,” located at http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/the-criminal-justice-process.html. Determine the three (3) most important areas of the criminal justice process. Provide support for your rationale on why you feel that they are vital as they relate to the criminal justice process.
The three most important areas of the criminal justice process involves first the stage of investigation, which is the facilitory stage of processing and discovery of evidential finds to render an answer to a questionable scenario. The second stage of the criminal justice process is the examination and analyzation of supportive evidence to correlate the crime to an alleged perpetrator. The last stage which is parallel and works adjacent is the presenting of charges (or indictment) to secure and levy charges through the judicial process as facilitates that probable cause has been met or the incident requires further inquiry with right to charge.
As per the investigation stage, this particular stage requires the exact detailing and recreation of the act and the possible conclusions that led to the act. With that in mind is the meticulous account to present an oral, written argument with supportive to prove its conclusivity that a step from A to B occurred and from that C to D is argumentatively a subsequent occurrence that parallels A to B and reaches a state of connectiveness. By this approach it brings about the fait accompli that reveals first the need for a structured, analytical approach to view the scene of crime in a 3D image that casts itself in a cineographic show. Further as in all investigations evidential findings are utmost value and necessitated care and a particular point that help facilitate a conclusionary find to make the sentence stick.
The next step is the examination and analyzation of the supportive evidence that runs parallel to the investigation which is inclusive of DNA examination, photos, sketches, notes, broad base interrogating and lookout for suspects as well as the establishing of a M.O. and conclusive search for the perpetrator.
Finally, the last step includes the application of charges in relation to crimes that have allegedly been done. This is inclusive of the right to a trial with fair representation that would rebut and challenge the charges levied and directed from the prosecutor and summarily the decision of guilty or not by the presenting magistrate, justice or judge.
From the textbook, compare and contrast the various sources of rights found in the United States. In your own opinion, determine which you feel is the most important source and why.
Now in the United States there are four basic sources of rights as follows: constitutions (federal and state), statutes, case law and court rules. These rules of the federal and state constitutions protect the rights of individuals in the levying of power and decision regarding them and the nature of the act of crimes or criminality.
In relation to the protection of rights the federal constitution is the most important and active protection for an accused in a criminal prosecution. These rights are based upon the Bill of Rights and are enumerated safeguards and are the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Further these rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are the minimum rights of individuals facing criminal prosecution but as a parallel these same rights can be expanded by state constitutions. These may contain additional provisions to further protect the rights of individuals in state criminal proceedings. Also, these rights of the state are similar to those of the Bill of Rights but pertain only to a particular state in question.
The next source of rights are the statutes which are laws passed by Congress of the United States or by individual state legislature. As a comparison Federal and State laws may cover the same rights noted in the U.S. Constitution but in more expanded detail in the State. For example, the right to counsel is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and is also guaranteed by federal or state law and binding in court proceedings. Consequently, the right to counsel by state may exceed the guarantee in the federal constitution. In expansion of allowability is the right of state law to determine procedure of the police and available corrections if procedures are breached or are failed.
Another source of rights are case laws which are not an encumbent from statutory laws but are independent and evolve primarily through judicial decisions. Case law should not be confused with common law which are originations from ancient and unwritten laws of England but have become a primary adaption in the United States that is inclusive of ancient usages and customs, judgments and decrees of the court recognizing, affirming and enforcing those usages and customs. But as a parallel case law evolves as statutory law and is further supported by legislature (federal and state) to ensure correct applying with the U.S. Constitution as the base and anchor.
Further, court rules have developed through the administration and supervisory power of the courts as facilitates to criminal justices. These courts whether federal or state have supervisory power over criminal cases and as such rules promulgated have the force and effect of law and therefore must be followed.
In consequence, in my opinion the various source of rights found in the United States that are the most important are those whose origination are based on truth, the Constitution which filters down from the Bill of Rights to hold all innocent until proven guilty. In essence, the idea and point is fairness even if the most grievousness thought and deed reflects not truth but guilt but with chance, opportunity, fortitude the inequitable becomes equitable with the truth as prevails as the true right and opponent against the bad, untruth and lie.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I agree with your post to me the investigation process is indeed the thrilling part of the hunt. It is the highlight that makes a career with the ability to search the links and garner the clues to the next level and then the next level until one hits jackpot.
Also, I agree that the investigation stage is important but it sometimes leads to a dead end when lack of cooperation is prominent. But with further stake outs that is reflected as a need this sometimes proves a cherry on the cake when it turns up not only the culprit but methodology proven and checked.
Lastly, the arrest stage is an intriguing venture and it must be done correctly and precisely or unfortunately all investigative work, stake outs, evidence is useless.
Case laws are established through all levels of court at which future rulings are adhered to a certain point with allowance for differing variables. As such the differences affect the outcome with consideration for the past, present and future in the changes in law geared to circumstances. Further I agree that the United States Constitution is our most treasured asset and anchor.
Thank you.
Felicia
Go to the Lawyers Website and review the article titled, “The Criminal Justice Process,” located at http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/the-criminal-justice-process.html. Determine the three (3) most important areas of the criminal justice process. Provide support for your rationale on why you feel that they are vital as they relate to the criminal justice process.
The three most important areas of the criminal justice process involves first the stage of investigation, which is the facilitory stage of processing and discovery of evidential finds to render an answer to a questionable scenario. The second stage of the criminal justice process is the examination and analyzation of supportive evidence to correlate the crime to an alleged perpetrator. The last stage which is parallel and works adjacent is the presenting of charges (or indictment) to secure and levy charges through the judicial process as facilitates that probable cause has been met or the incident requires further inquiry with right to charge.
As per the investigation stage, this particular stage requires the exact detailing and recreation of the act and the possible conclusions that led to the act. With that in mind is the meticulous account to present an oral, written argument with supportive to prove its conclusivity that a step from A to B occurred and from that C to D is argumentatively a subsequent occurrence that parallels A to B and reaches a state of connectiveness. By this approach it brings about the fait accompli that reveals first the need for a structured, analytical approach to view the scene of crime in a 3D image that casts itself in a cineographic show. Further as in all investigations evidential findings are utmost value and necessitated care and a particular point that help facilitate a conclusionary find to make the sentence stick.
The next step is the examination and analyzation of the supportive evidence that runs parallel to the investigation which is inclusive of DNA examination, photos, sketches, notes, broad base interrogating and lookout for suspects as well as the establishing of a M.O. and conclusive search for the perpetrator.
Finally, the last step includes the application of charges in relation to crimes that have allegedly been done. This is inclusive of the right to a trial with fair representation that would rebut and challenge the charges levied and directed from the prosecutor and summarily the decision of guilty or not by the presenting magistrate, justice or judge.
From the textbook, compare and contrast the various sources of rights found in the United States. In your own opinion, determine which you feel is the most important source and why.
Now in the United States there are four basic sources of rights as follows: constitutions (federal and state), statutes, case law and court rules. These rules of the federal and state constitutions protect the rights of individuals in the levying of power and decision regarding them and the nature of the act of crimes or criminality.
In relation to the protection of rights the federal constitution is the most important and active protection for an accused in a criminal prosecution. These rights are based upon the Bill of Rights and are enumerated safeguards and are the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Further these rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are the minimum rights of individuals facing criminal prosecution but as a parallel these same rights can be expanded by state constitutions. These may contain additional provisions to further protect the rights of individuals in state criminal proceedings. Also, these rights of the state are similar to those of the Bill of Rights but pertain only to a particular state in question.
The next source of rights are the statutes which are laws passed by Congress of the United States or by individual state legislature. As a comparison Federal and State laws may cover the same rights noted in the U.S. Constitution but in more expanded detail in the State. For example, the right to counsel is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and is also guaranteed by federal or state law and binding in court proceedings. Consequently, the right to counsel by state may exceed the guarantee in the federal constitution. In expansion of allowability is the right of state law to determine procedure of the police and available corrections if procedures are breached or are failed.
Another source of rights are case laws which are not an encumbent from statutory laws but are independent and evolve primarily through judicial decisions. Case law should not be confused with common law which are originations from ancient and unwritten laws of England but have become a primary adaption in the United States that is inclusive of ancient usages and customs, judgments and decrees of the court recognizing, affirming and enforcing those usages and customs. But as a parallel case law evolves as statutory law and is further supported by legislature (federal and state) to ensure correct applying with the U.S. Constitution as the base and anchor.
Further, court rules have developed through the administration and supervisory power of the courts as facilitates to criminal justices. These courts whether federal or state have supervisory power over criminal cases and as such rules promulgated have the force and effect of law and therefore must be followed.
In consequence, in my opinion the various source of rights found in the United States that are the most important are those whose origination are based on truth, the Constitution which filters down from the Bill of Rights to hold all innocent until proven guilty. In essence, the idea and point is fairness even if the most grievousness thought and deed reflects not truth but guilt but with chance, opportunity, fortitude the inequitable becomes equitable with the truth as prevails as the true right and opponent against the bad, untruth and lie.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I agree with your post to me the investigation process is indeed the thrilling part of the hunt. It is the highlight that makes a career with the ability to search the links and garner the clues to the next level and then the next level until one hits jackpot.
Also, I agree that the investigation stage is important but it sometimes leads to a dead end when lack of cooperation is prominent. But with further stake outs that is reflected as a need this sometimes proves a cherry on the cake when it turns up not only the culprit but methodology proven and checked.
Lastly, the arrest stage is an intriguing venture and it must be done correctly and precisely or unfortunately all investigative work, stake outs, evidence is useless.
Case laws are established through all levels of court at which future rulings are adhered to a certain point with allowance for differing variables. As such the differences affect the outcome with consideration for the past, present and future in the changes in law geared to circumstances. Further I agree that the United States Constitution is our most treasured asset and anchor.
Thank you.
Felicia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
