CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS AFTER A REQUEST FOR A LAWYER
CASE STUDY THREE
1
Confessions and Admissions after a
Request for a Lawyer
Strayer University
Felicia McCaw
Professor Christopher J. Abreau
CRJ325
Online Spring 2017
May 26, 2017
Confessions and Admissions after a
Request for a Lawyer
2
During the trek through the legal jungle and the correct procedure of processing a suspect the summarily purpose is the correct attending to rules, regulations and adherence to details and as such the constitutional rights of suspects and the rights of officers are a primary focus and how the constitutional amendments figure predominantly in the process.
The guarantee to fairness during the interrogation stage is allocated and given by the Fifth Amendment. This Amendment gives protection by affording the right to not self-incriminate, be subjected to double jeopardy and the right to due process, grand jury screening of criminal indictments and compensation for seizures of private property under eminent domain. The Sixth Amendment affords the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district where the crime was committed.
With said Amendments acting as protective safeguard the right to counsel is always a given right before the answering of questions that would self-incriminate and depose the accused to a regulatory stage of guilt and incarceration. Therefore, the reading of the Miranda Rights allows the accused to be told his or her rights with acknowledgment of the right to silence. As such the waiving of these rights allows the admissibility of any statements that relay knowledge and actions of participation in a crime to be used against said accused in the case against him or her.
In the manner of the case of shoplifting which are also summarily known as a stage of kleptomanism these acts are done in adverse to legal norms and laws and are acts of war against the market holders and consumers who shop and buy. Even with the active surveillance cameras the acts of war continue which escalates the spur of crime and wrongness of belief that acceptance will follow their belief they are entitled to something for nothing. Further bias is also an attribute that causes the lack of discovery of all shoplifting Trojans whose nature is very predatory and stigmatic. There are several types of strategic glosses that address the levels of shoplifting with the most significant as follows: body gloss,
Confessions and Admissions after a
Request for a Lawyer
3
orientation gloss and circumspection gloss and as such it describes a purposeful state and strategy when doing an offensive act of shoplifting.
Body gloss is described as a way of situating or positioning the body to prevent discovery while in an active state of criminality. Orientation gloss gives the actions done as nolmalcy and does not subsequently cause suspicion. Circumspection gloss deliberately allows the perception of a physical act to be perceived as non-threatening. These universal glosses in relation to the shoplifting journey are indeed an assistant in the establishing of causal effect because each tries to negate and disguise the true intent.
As such the act of shoplifting is a studied act which establishes a stage of premeditation, forethought and deliberacy. With that thought in mind is the evaluation of Officer Jones attendance to duty and the arresting of a shoplifter (suspect). The suspect was apprehended and cuffed after being caught shoplifting and taken to the manager’s office. The manager called the police and Officer Jones arrived twelve minutes later, took a statement from the security guard, viewed the in-store camera film of the shoplifting incident and placed the suspect under arrest, read to the suspect the Miranda Rights or Warning and inquired if he would like to make a statement. After receiving the response of “No, I would like a lawyer.”from the suspect Officer Jones transported the suspect to the local jail to be booked. Five hours later, the suspect was interviewed by a detective and read the Miranda Warning. The detective inquired if the suspect would like to talk. The suspect replied “Yes” and eventually confessed to the crime.
In regard to this scenario, the Edwards Rule would not be applicable due to the nature of a lack of coincidence or similarity. The scenario that helped establish the Edwards Rule (Edwards v. Arizona (1981) ) is summarily different due to the fact that the confession in this case was gained by the suspect gaining knowledge that another suspect had implicated him in a crime. Because he was not granted legal
Confessions and Admissions after a
Request for a Lawyer
4
counsel and subsequently confessed due to an act of deliberate entrapment and misleading of the suspect who did not retain his rights to silence and confessed to the crime.
As with the guarantee of the Fifth Amendment and the right to not self-incriminate the suspect’s rights were violated as an active intimidation tactic and allowed the dismissal of any testimony given that incriminated him in the crime by his confession. Therefore, in this case of Officer Jones and the suspect the protective status of the Edwards Rule would not be suited to this situation. Because the suspect knowingly, intelligently waived his rights to silence with no intimidation or entrapment involved with the waiver explained simply and clearly to relay the consequences of choice. Further the active confession is admissible, with a stance to prosecute due to the free right of choice and also due to fact of evidential proof of the crime committed on camera, witness and secured apprehension by the security guard.
References
Dioso-Villa, R., Julian, R., Kebbell, M., Weathered, L. & Westera, N. (2016). Investigation to Exoneration: A Systemic Review of Wrongful Conviction in Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 28(2), 157-172.
Matthews, R. (2010). The construction of’So What’ criminology:a realist analysis. Crime, Law & Social Change, 54(2), 125-140. doi:10.1007/s10611-010-9249-2
Lasky, N., Jacques, S., & Fisher, B.S. (2015). Glossing Over Shoplifting: How Thieves Act Normal. Deviant Behavior, 36(4), 293*309. doi:10.1080/01639625.2014.935651
Steffensmeier, D. J., & Terry, R. M. (1973). Deviance and Respectability: An Observational Study of Reactions to Shoplifting. Social Forces, 51(4), 417-426.
Freckelton, I. (2013). The Steal: A Cultural History of Shoplifting by Rachel Shtier. Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 20(2), 312-314. doi:10.1080/132187719.2013.783767
Waiving Miranda Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved May 25, 2017, from
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/waiving-miranda-rights.html
Right to silence. (2017, May 20). Retrieved May 25, 2017, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence
(n.d.). Retrieved May 25, 2017, from https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/i-edwards-i-rule
Edwards v. Arizona. (2017, April 12). Retrieved May 25, 2017 from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards _v._Arizona
Self-incrimination. (2017, May 21). Retrieved May 25, 2017 from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination
Rewriting the Edwards Rule.(n.d). Retrieved May 25, 2017, from
http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2010/05/rewriting-the-edwards-rule.aspx
Thursday, June 22, 2017
CRJ325 - CASE STUDY 2 - PLAIN VIEW, OPEN FIELDS, ABANDONMENT, AND BORDER SEARCHES AS THEY RELATE TO SEARCH AND SEIZURES
PLAIN VIEW, OPEN FIELDS, ABANDONMENT, AND BORDER SEARCHES AS THEY RELATE TO SEARCH AND SEIZURES
CASE STUDY TWO
1
Plain View, Open Fields, Abandonment,
and Border Searches as They Relate to
Search and Seizure
Strayer University
Felicia McCaw
Professor Christopher J. Abreau
CRJ325
Online Spring 2017
May 11, 2017
Plain View, Open Fields, Abandonment,
and Border Searches as They Relate to
Search and Seizure
2
The need to attend to the Fourth Amendment during investigative purpose and its protective status in dealing with the populace and the retained criminal element in society which also attributes allowances and actions associated with everyday duty. As such the consequences of correct calls and designation dealing with probable cause or reasonable suspicion further the ability to act upon the stated intent of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Because probable cause is a higher level than reasonable suspicion it further necessitates and adheres to the purpose of intent to pursue and follow-up for further investigation. Also, the totality of the circumstances configures highly in the ability to indeed claim that probable cause or reasonable suspicion is possible and exist. Both probable cause and reasonable suspicion has the ability to be challenged whether due to exigent circumstances, error, or incorrect attention to acquiring information whether by tips, abandonment, open fields investigation, border searches or by informants.
Therefore, searches and ultimately seizures are based upon warrant (the rule – with specifications) and without a warrant (the exception or dependent on circumstances) allows the Plainview Doctrine to cover differing amounts of scenarios which would allow the seizing of condemnatory evidence but as each scenario alternates so does the approach to search and seize and are conditional as each investigative strategy is acted out.
In collation with the search and seizure process, the border search includes three types of searches which are routine, non-routine and extended. As with other searches the scenario does not need a warrant if there is reasonable suspicion and the effective seizure can be allowed based upon this. The routine search is usually not personally invasive to the privacy of an individual but may proceed to a non-routine search if reasonable suspicion is founded and has grounds. As such the non-routine search compels a more invasionary search of the individual (e.g., strip search).
Plain View, Open Fields, Abandonment,
and Border Searches as They Relate to
Search and Seizure
3
Extended searches goes beyond the limits of routine and non-routine by allowing searches that pertain to possible acts of criminality beyond both the physical and virtual borders provided that reasonable suspicion exists.
With a valid stop, the officer is allowed to search and seize illegal items in plain view. With an invalid stop, harassment or color or race identified can purposely cause reason to challenge an unreasonable or reasonable stop, search, seizure and support a motion to dismiss contraband or findings unless it is conclusively a border search. In effect the Plainview Doctrine must have probable cause which parallels to a stop that is also conditioned to reasonable suspicion except for a border search it does not need probable cause but may be based upon reasonable suspicion.
Further as stipulated by the Plain View Doctrine police officers have the right to seize items that are in plain view as long as they have the legal right and are positioned to see the items and may seize without warrant. Also, plain view 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, home or vehicle 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
In relation to open fields and the gathering of information this does not affect the Fourth Amendment as to violation because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in an open field that constitutes a trespass. In support of this is the case of Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984). Even if the stated fact that a barn is situated outside of the fenced area surrounding the house it is considered to be part of an open field and not the curtilage of a home as sup-
Plain View, Open Fields, Abandonment,
and Border Searches as They Relate to
Search and Seizure
4
ported by the case of the United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987).
Next, comes the state of abandonment and to the fact there is no reasonable expectation related to an item that has been abandoned and as thus the police are free to seize and search such items. For example, in support is the case California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) wherein that garbage left outside the curtilage of a home for regular collection is considered abandoned and therefore may be seized by the police by warrant. Further the state of abandonment has to show that the owner has given up rights to the property and must demonstrate an intention that ownership has been voluntarily relinquished and has dismissed control over the property.
Therefore, the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments are all constitutional safeguards which help protect the police officer (police department) and the populace from unfair treatment, unreasonable searches and acquiring of evidence as reflected by the following example:
Officer Jones asked the neighborhood’s regular trash collector to put the content of the defendant’s garbage that was left on the curb in plastic bags and to turn over the bags to him at the end of the day. The trash collector did as the officer asked in order to not mix the garbage once he collected the defendant’s garbage. The officer searched through the garbage and found items indicative of narcotics use. The officer then recited the information that was obtained from the trash in an affidavit in support of a warrant to search the defendant’s home. The officer encountered the defendant at the house later that day upon execution of the warrant. The officer found quantities of cocaine and marijuana during the search and arrested the defendant on felony narcotic charges.
In pertaining to this example, first of all Officer Jones violated the defendant’s rights because he had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to ask the garbage man to secure the trash in plastic bags for him therefore this is a clear violation of Fourth Amendment rights. Next, the purpose of the trash man as an actor or collaborator without reasonable suspicion is again a violation because it defies the purpose that the clear point is how was the judgment made for this person, specific address and trash to be singled out. Further the rights of curtilage cannot be utilized
Plain View, Open Fields, Abandonment,
and Border Searches as They Relate to
Search and Seizure
5
if plastics bags are seen within the privacy of home boundaries and therefore be seen as abandoned. Contents in plastic bags do not necessary concede to the state of abandonment and therefore do accede to invasion and the compromise of the Fourth Amendment rights. Possible infringement of the Fifth Amendment rights due to possible race discrimination, discrimination, profiling, bias, bigotry or stereotype and lack of equal treatment is a possible factor in this scenario. The effective rights of the Sixth Amendment are offered due to a right to a fair trial and right to defend against levied charges. The Fourteenth Amendment is effectively not violated because as to fairness and right to trial this allows the inability to violate a citizen's privileges or immunities; shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and must guarantee all persons equal protection of the laws. In consequence, as in the providing of these Amendments the right to due process, equal protection during the arrest. interim, before and after trial is offered with condition of right to appeal.
References
Search and seizure. (2017, April 09). Retrieved April 16, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure
Abandonment. (n.d.). Retrieved May 08, 2017, from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Abandonment
Di, Y., Feng, H., Mingyu, L., Meizi, L., & Doss, D.A. (2016). DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO DECLARE? CONSIDERATIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND BORDER SEARCHES. Allied Academies International Conference: Proceedings Of The Academy Of Organizational Culture, Communications & Conflict (AOCCC),
Horton v. California: The Plain View Doctrine Loses Its ... (n.d.). Retrieved May 11, 2017, from http://www.bing.com/cr?IG=F62BD8B131A14D13BAEF1DE59F019077&CID=1E1709E6E42469321FC60366E5B46887&rd=1&h=X5Mgb6q_XG6KdGQfrTWX_5nUU9YIHEYHnMrg4H96dWM&v=1&r=http%3a%2f%2frepository.jmls.edu%2fcgi%2fviewcontent.cgi%3farticle%3d1900%26context%3dlawreview&p=DevEx,5079.1
Border Searches. (n.d.). Retrieved May 08, 2017, from http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-04/18-border-searches.html
Victor, D. (2017, February 14). What Are Your Rights if Border Agents Want to Search Your Phone? Retrieved May 08, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/business/border-enforcement-airport-phones.html?_r=0
Janes, J. (2016). The Border Search Doctrine in the Digital Age: Implications of Riley v. California on Border Law Enforcement's Authority for Warrantless Searches of Electronic Devices. Review Of Litigation, 35(1), 71-104.
el final
CASE STUDY TWO
1
Plain View, Open Fields, Abandonment,
and Border Searches as They Relate to
Search and Seizure
Strayer University
Felicia McCaw
Professor Christopher J. Abreau
CRJ325
Online Spring 2017
May 11, 2017
Plain View, Open Fields, Abandonment,
and Border Searches as They Relate to
Search and Seizure
2
The need to attend to the Fourth Amendment during investigative purpose and its protective status in dealing with the populace and the retained criminal element in society which also attributes allowances and actions associated with everyday duty. As such the consequences of correct calls and designation dealing with probable cause or reasonable suspicion further the ability to act upon the stated intent of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Because probable cause is a higher level than reasonable suspicion it further necessitates and adheres to the purpose of intent to pursue and follow-up for further investigation. Also, the totality of the circumstances configures highly in the ability to indeed claim that probable cause or reasonable suspicion is possible and exist. Both probable cause and reasonable suspicion has the ability to be challenged whether due to exigent circumstances, error, or incorrect attention to acquiring information whether by tips, abandonment, open fields investigation, border searches or by informants.
Therefore, searches and ultimately seizures are based upon warrant (the rule – with specifications) and without a warrant (the exception or dependent on circumstances) allows the Plainview Doctrine to cover differing amounts of scenarios which would allow the seizing of condemnatory evidence but as each scenario alternates so does the approach to search and seize and are conditional as each investigative strategy is acted out.
In collation with the search and seizure process, the border search includes three types of searches which are routine, non-routine and extended. As with other searches the scenario does not need a warrant if there is reasonable suspicion and the effective seizure can be allowed based upon this. The routine search is usually not personally invasive to the privacy of an individual but may proceed to a non-routine search if reasonable suspicion is founded and has grounds. As such the non-routine search compels a more invasionary search of the individual (e.g., strip search).
Plain View, Open Fields, Abandonment,
and Border Searches as They Relate to
Search and Seizure
3
Extended searches goes beyond the limits of routine and non-routine by allowing searches that pertain to possible acts of criminality beyond both the physical and virtual borders provided that reasonable suspicion exists.
With a valid stop, the officer is allowed to search and seize illegal items in plain view. With an invalid stop, harassment or color or race identified can purposely cause reason to challenge an unreasonable or reasonable stop, search, seizure and support a motion to dismiss contraband or findings unless it is conclusively a border search. In effect the Plainview Doctrine must have probable cause which parallels to a stop that is also conditioned to reasonable suspicion except for a border search it does not need probable cause but may be based upon reasonable suspicion.
Further as stipulated by the Plain View Doctrine police officers have the right to seize items that are in plain view as long as they have the legal right and are positioned to see the items and may seize without warrant. Also, plain view 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, home or vehicle 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
In relation to open fields and the gathering of information this does not affect the Fourth Amendment as to violation because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in an open field that constitutes a trespass. In support of this is the case of Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984). Even if the stated fact that a barn is situated outside of the fenced area surrounding the house it is considered to be part of an open field and not the curtilage of a home as sup-
Plain View, Open Fields, Abandonment,
and Border Searches as They Relate to
Search and Seizure
4
ported by the case of the United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987).
Next, comes the state of abandonment and to the fact there is no reasonable expectation related to an item that has been abandoned and as thus the police are free to seize and search such items. For example, in support is the case California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) wherein that garbage left outside the curtilage of a home for regular collection is considered abandoned and therefore may be seized by the police by warrant. Further the state of abandonment has to show that the owner has given up rights to the property and must demonstrate an intention that ownership has been voluntarily relinquished and has dismissed control over the property.
Therefore, the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments are all constitutional safeguards which help protect the police officer (police department) and the populace from unfair treatment, unreasonable searches and acquiring of evidence as reflected by the following example:
Officer Jones asked the neighborhood’s regular trash collector to put the content of the defendant’s garbage that was left on the curb in plastic bags and to turn over the bags to him at the end of the day. The trash collector did as the officer asked in order to not mix the garbage once he collected the defendant’s garbage. The officer searched through the garbage and found items indicative of narcotics use. The officer then recited the information that was obtained from the trash in an affidavit in support of a warrant to search the defendant’s home. The officer encountered the defendant at the house later that day upon execution of the warrant. The officer found quantities of cocaine and marijuana during the search and arrested the defendant on felony narcotic charges.
In pertaining to this example, first of all Officer Jones violated the defendant’s rights because he had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to ask the garbage man to secure the trash in plastic bags for him therefore this is a clear violation of Fourth Amendment rights. Next, the purpose of the trash man as an actor or collaborator without reasonable suspicion is again a violation because it defies the purpose that the clear point is how was the judgment made for this person, specific address and trash to be singled out. Further the rights of curtilage cannot be utilized
Plain View, Open Fields, Abandonment,
and Border Searches as They Relate to
Search and Seizure
5
if plastics bags are seen within the privacy of home boundaries and therefore be seen as abandoned. Contents in plastic bags do not necessary concede to the state of abandonment and therefore do accede to invasion and the compromise of the Fourth Amendment rights. Possible infringement of the Fifth Amendment rights due to possible race discrimination, discrimination, profiling, bias, bigotry or stereotype and lack of equal treatment is a possible factor in this scenario. The effective rights of the Sixth Amendment are offered due to a right to a fair trial and right to defend against levied charges. The Fourteenth Amendment is effectively not violated because as to fairness and right to trial this allows the inability to violate a citizen's privileges or immunities; shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and must guarantee all persons equal protection of the laws. In consequence, as in the providing of these Amendments the right to due process, equal protection during the arrest. interim, before and after trial is offered with condition of right to appeal.
References
Search and seizure. (2017, April 09). Retrieved April 16, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure
Abandonment. (n.d.). Retrieved May 08, 2017, from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Abandonment
Di, Y., Feng, H., Mingyu, L., Meizi, L., & Doss, D.A. (2016). DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO DECLARE? CONSIDERATIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND BORDER SEARCHES. Allied Academies International Conference: Proceedings Of The Academy Of Organizational Culture, Communications & Conflict (AOCCC),
Horton v. California: The Plain View Doctrine Loses Its ... (n.d.). Retrieved May 11, 2017, from http://www.bing.com/cr?IG=F62BD8B131A14D13BAEF1DE59F019077&CID=1E1709E6E42469321FC60366E5B46887&rd=1&h=X5Mgb6q_XG6KdGQfrTWX_5nUU9YIHEYHnMrg4H96dWM&v=1&r=http%3a%2f%2frepository.jmls.edu%2fcgi%2fviewcontent.cgi%3farticle%3d1900%26context%3dlawreview&p=DevEx,5079.1
Border Searches. (n.d.). Retrieved May 08, 2017, from http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-04/18-border-searches.html
Victor, D. (2017, February 14). What Are Your Rights if Border Agents Want to Search Your Phone? Retrieved May 08, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/business/border-enforcement-airport-phones.html?_r=0
Janes, J. (2016). The Border Search Doctrine in the Digital Age: Implications of Riley v. California on Border Law Enforcement's Authority for Warrantless Searches of Electronic Devices. Review Of Litigation, 35(1), 71-104.
el final
CRJ325 - ASSIGNMENT ONE - PROCEDURAL LAW AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS
PROCEDURAL LAW AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS
ASSIGNMENT 1
1
Procedural Law and the Bill of Rights
Strayer University
Felicia McCaw
Professor Christopher J. Abreau
CRJ325
Online Spring 2017
April 27, 2017
Procedural Law and the Bill of Rights
2
As with the acts of right and wrong comes the necessary action of a culmination of regulation, rules and laws to govern the conduct of man in a civilized world. Establishment of law and regularity causes a structural and consistent dispensing of the right to order with all its peculiarities entailed. Because of this the right to order as well as laws was imaged in this country by adoption of the British Magna Carta of 1215 AD to assist in the structuring of governing policy for the United States.
This document signaled a turning point in history that lifted the common man from the wells and bellows of the street and made him and her a free person with the right to liberty, freedom and right. Striking a bell for freedom and true right they obtained independence from a totality society and became a society of equality, with freedom to protest. Evolving through the centuries it stood as a guiding point in the regulation of fairness in early Parliament and as a foundation for the powers which paralleled the dispensing of laws and the act of habeas corpus.
Active with richness of right and justice the Magna Carta helped the compilation of the American Constitution in 1787 and became the supreme law of the newly created republic of the United States due to its symbolism of liberty and freedom for the individual against a totalitarianism government. Acting as the mentor the British Magna Carta helped be a prolific exemplary model to the American Constitution and Bill of Rights that stand for the protection of every individual in the United States with retainership of authority of the federal government to be primary over all states but with provisional laws to actively govern individual states.
Therefore, the Bill of Rights as the ratified addition to the United States Constitution grants and guarantees personal freedom and rights, exact limitations on governmental power in
Procedural Law and the Bill of Rights
3
judicial and other proceedings and explicit declarations that state all powers not specifically dedicated to Congress by the United States Constitution are reserves for the states or people.
Consequently, because the Bill of Rights is a structuralized itinerary to stand for each state to actively protect the rights of each citizen it parallels to procedural law and substantive law and its purpose to regulate fairness and rules in the court room and actual determinants in each civil, lawsuit, criminal or administrative proceedings with testing of validity of claims and defenses.
As such the procedural law and substantive law differs in the aspect that procedural is relative to the process that a case will go through whereas substantive is concerned with the factual nature of the case, crime and substance of the matter. Therefore, based upon this the two steps of the criminal justice process involve the step from arrest and imprisonment are protected by the Fourth Amendment which governs and protects individuals from undue harassment, security in person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizure which shall not be violated unless there is probable cause to issue warrant to describe place, person or thing to be seized.
In order for an arrest to be facilitated which is described as a seizure of a person the restrictions relating to the Fourth Amendment has to be adhered to in order to search, seize and arrest and therefore prosecute and successfully imprison. Therefore, probable cause has to be evident in order to arrest, with or without a warrant, and it is not allowable unless it is evident.
Further it also states that a prudent man is actively allowed to arrest if facts exist and are known to the officer that shows an act of criminality has ensued or is presently ensuing. Therefore, with evidential finds that have been legally garnered it becomes the totality in the
Procedural Law and the Bill of Rights
4
process that causes an acceptance and supportive to the prosecution level and then consequently the sentencing and lastly the imprisonment.
In relation to probable cause is the concept of reasonable suspicion. Probable cause is explained as a fair probability that a search will reveal evidence that correspond to an active crime that has ensued or is progressively ongoing. Whereas reasonable suspicion pertains to the right of a police officer to detain a perk (suspicious party) to investigate and check by detain and frisk for possible weapons. It also must adhere to certain requirements, e.g., description of a suspect, suspicious activity after sighting the police, or by being a suspect in a high crime area who runs after seeing the police. Both are based on suspicious activity and accord the police the right to inquiry, investigate and proceed with legal requirements and restrictions. Therefore, with the knowledge of the Fourth Amendment as a prevailing right this allows the suspect certain protection under the law as well as the policeman.
Probable cause is usually based on reasonable suspicion, facts and circumstances which are supportive to an act of arrest, prosecution and imprisonment. Whereas reasonable suspicion is not based on facts but may be due to visionary sighting, tips or relayal of an APB and it does not necessarily lead to an arrest but allows inquiry, investigation, detain and frisk which may turn up an evidential find or not.
Consequently, the exclusionary rule comes into play to either exclude evidence that has been obtained in violation of a perk’s Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore a search that is deemed unreasonable will cause the evidence obtained from the search to be excluded from the trial. As such with the law as it deals with evidence, the court has at its disposal and active right of discretion to exclude evidence that is technically admissible but creates a prejudicial effect out
Procedural Law and the Bill of Rights
5
of proportion to its evidential value. Thus the rule as it pertains to question of admissibility of certain statements, particularly admissions and confessions. Therefore, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine exists to exclude evidence that is obtained through a constitutional violation.
Two examples in which the exclusionary rule may not apply are the independent-source doctrine and the inevitable-discovery doctrine and possibly the attenuation doctrine. The independent-source doctrine provides an exclusion from the exclusionary rule because it allows evidence to be admissible if the police can prove it was obtained from an independent source that was not connected with a illegal search or seizure. Next, the inevitable-discovery doctrine provides that evidence is admissible if the police can prove that they would have inevitably discovered the evidence anyway by lawful means. Lastly, the attenuation doctrine allows the admission of some evidence even though it was obtained as a result of illegal detention.
The case of Tennessee v. Garner (Edward), et al, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a case that identifies a use of deadly force against a fleeing individual (Garner) who was caught leaving the scene of a burglary wherein he stopped at a 6 foot fence which allowed Policeman Hymon (Elton) to see Garner’s face and hands which reflected no weapon. After ordering Garner to halt, Garner proceeded to climb the fence at which time Hymon shot him with the bullet striking him in the head. Garner died shortly thereafter at the age of 15 years at the hospital.
The actions of Hymon were based upon Tennessee State Statute and official Memphis Police Department policy which authorizes deadly force against a fleeing suspect. The statute
Procedural Law and the Bill of Rights
6
(40-7-108) provides “if, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flees or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest.”
As with all types of gauging relating to police duty and actions the need for determination of the level of force has to be evaluated quickly. In relation to this scenario a warning shot in the air may have resulted in the desired act of ceasing to flee. If Hymon had time to ascertain that the suspect was unarmed and young, the first thought is to effect an arrest not kill, slow the suspect by pinpointing a neutral location to effect a non-serious injury.
Because of the level of seriousness of this case and the deadly outcome from the interpretation of the Tennessee State Statute (40-7-108) Garner’s father (Cleamtee) brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under the Civil Right Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming the City of Memphis, its mayor, the Memphis Police Department, its director and Officer Hymon as defendants. The District Court upheld the statute and judged Hymon’s actions to be constitutional.
Because of Garner’s father continued disagreement with the outcome in the District Court the cases was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit by certiorari whereby the decision was reversed. The Court of Appeals stance on the manner held that the killing of a fleeing suspect falls under the category of “seizure” and for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment and the statute is only constitutional when the act of seizure is reasonable. Therefore, the court found that based on facts presented in this case, the Tennessee Statute failed to properly limit the use of deadly force by reference to the seriousness of the felony.
As to my opinion, a felony cannot be claimed unless processed through the legal system. Even though the commencement of the act reflects in conclusive sight a felonious crime is
Procedural Law and the Bill of Rights
7
ensuing an arrest must follow. Therefore, the act of an officer using deadly force must effectively prove that his life was in danger and that his act needed the gauging and utilizing of deadly force. Further that the common law deals with an active state of being a felon and not a felonious act.
In conclusion, the protective rights of the Fourth Amendment allows a standing for the individual and populace to be protected from a statute deemed unreasonable, intimidating and frightening in the extreme. The causal effect of judging a call as to its level of low severity and ranging to a level of high severity allows the balance and effective judgment to adhere to the Bill of Rights, protective stance of the people and lastly the correct detail and adhering to procedural law, courts, regulations and rules.
References
Tennessee v. Garner. (2017, April 12). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner
Searches and Seizures: The Limitations of the Police. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/searches-and-seizures-the-limitations-of-the-police.html
Warrantless Searches. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Warrantless Searches
Police Stops: What to Do If You Are Pulled Over. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-stops-when-pulled-over-30186.html
Raphael, A., & Yoshimura, D. (2016). Should Evidence Found During a Search Incident to Arrest Be Suppressed if the Arrest Was Based on a Valid Warrant Discovered During an Illegal Detention? Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases, 43(5), 156-160.
Exclusionary rule. (2017, March 23). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule
Arrest. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/arrest.html
Chronology: The Arrest Process. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/chronology-the-arrest-process.html
Arrest, Jail, and Court Process. (2012, April 13). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from https://supportcece.wordpress.com/legal-info/arrest-jail-court-process/
Busby, J. C. (2009, September 17). Probable Cause. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause
What is reasonable suspicion? (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from https://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/what-is-reasonable-suspicion/
Exclusionary rule. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Exclusionary Rule
Definitions Of Probable Cause Vs. Reasonable Suspicion. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://thelawdictionary.org/article/definitions-of-probable-cause-vs-reasonable-suspicion/
A. (2015, March 03). Home. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-substantive-and-vs-procedural-law/
United States Bill of Rights. (2017, April 24). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
Magna Carta. (2017, April 25). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
Procedural law. (2017, March 21). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_law
Tennessee v. Garner: Ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court on the Use of Deadly Force by Police (1986). Historic Documents of 1985.
Walter, A. (2017). Police Brutality: An Overview. Points Of View,
Blume, John H., "Deadly Force in Memphis: Tennessee v. Garner" (1984).Cornell Law Faculty Publications.Paper 273. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/273
References
Page 2
WHEN IS POLICE VIOLENCE JUSTIFIED? (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://docplayer.net/4904373-When-is-police-violence-justified.html
Canales, J. L. (n.d.). Use of Force Truro Police. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from https://www.scribd.com/document/214685823/Use-of-Force-Truro-Police
el final
ASSIGNMENT 1
1
Procedural Law and the Bill of Rights
Strayer University
Felicia McCaw
Professor Christopher J. Abreau
CRJ325
Online Spring 2017
April 27, 2017
Procedural Law and the Bill of Rights
2
As with the acts of right and wrong comes the necessary action of a culmination of regulation, rules and laws to govern the conduct of man in a civilized world. Establishment of law and regularity causes a structural and consistent dispensing of the right to order with all its peculiarities entailed. Because of this the right to order as well as laws was imaged in this country by adoption of the British Magna Carta of 1215 AD to assist in the structuring of governing policy for the United States.
This document signaled a turning point in history that lifted the common man from the wells and bellows of the street and made him and her a free person with the right to liberty, freedom and right. Striking a bell for freedom and true right they obtained independence from a totality society and became a society of equality, with freedom to protest. Evolving through the centuries it stood as a guiding point in the regulation of fairness in early Parliament and as a foundation for the powers which paralleled the dispensing of laws and the act of habeas corpus.
Active with richness of right and justice the Magna Carta helped the compilation of the American Constitution in 1787 and became the supreme law of the newly created republic of the United States due to its symbolism of liberty and freedom for the individual against a totalitarianism government. Acting as the mentor the British Magna Carta helped be a prolific exemplary model to the American Constitution and Bill of Rights that stand for the protection of every individual in the United States with retainership of authority of the federal government to be primary over all states but with provisional laws to actively govern individual states.
Therefore, the Bill of Rights as the ratified addition to the United States Constitution grants and guarantees personal freedom and rights, exact limitations on governmental power in
Procedural Law and the Bill of Rights
3
judicial and other proceedings and explicit declarations that state all powers not specifically dedicated to Congress by the United States Constitution are reserves for the states or people.
Consequently, because the Bill of Rights is a structuralized itinerary to stand for each state to actively protect the rights of each citizen it parallels to procedural law and substantive law and its purpose to regulate fairness and rules in the court room and actual determinants in each civil, lawsuit, criminal or administrative proceedings with testing of validity of claims and defenses.
As such the procedural law and substantive law differs in the aspect that procedural is relative to the process that a case will go through whereas substantive is concerned with the factual nature of the case, crime and substance of the matter. Therefore, based upon this the two steps of the criminal justice process involve the step from arrest and imprisonment are protected by the Fourth Amendment which governs and protects individuals from undue harassment, security in person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizure which shall not be violated unless there is probable cause to issue warrant to describe place, person or thing to be seized.
In order for an arrest to be facilitated which is described as a seizure of a person the restrictions relating to the Fourth Amendment has to be adhered to in order to search, seize and arrest and therefore prosecute and successfully imprison. Therefore, probable cause has to be evident in order to arrest, with or without a warrant, and it is not allowable unless it is evident.
Further it also states that a prudent man is actively allowed to arrest if facts exist and are known to the officer that shows an act of criminality has ensued or is presently ensuing. Therefore, with evidential finds that have been legally garnered it becomes the totality in the
Procedural Law and the Bill of Rights
4
process that causes an acceptance and supportive to the prosecution level and then consequently the sentencing and lastly the imprisonment.
In relation to probable cause is the concept of reasonable suspicion. Probable cause is explained as a fair probability that a search will reveal evidence that correspond to an active crime that has ensued or is progressively ongoing. Whereas reasonable suspicion pertains to the right of a police officer to detain a perk (suspicious party) to investigate and check by detain and frisk for possible weapons. It also must adhere to certain requirements, e.g., description of a suspect, suspicious activity after sighting the police, or by being a suspect in a high crime area who runs after seeing the police. Both are based on suspicious activity and accord the police the right to inquiry, investigate and proceed with legal requirements and restrictions. Therefore, with the knowledge of the Fourth Amendment as a prevailing right this allows the suspect certain protection under the law as well as the policeman.
Probable cause is usually based on reasonable suspicion, facts and circumstances which are supportive to an act of arrest, prosecution and imprisonment. Whereas reasonable suspicion is not based on facts but may be due to visionary sighting, tips or relayal of an APB and it does not necessarily lead to an arrest but allows inquiry, investigation, detain and frisk which may turn up an evidential find or not.
Consequently, the exclusionary rule comes into play to either exclude evidence that has been obtained in violation of a perk’s Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore a search that is deemed unreasonable will cause the evidence obtained from the search to be excluded from the trial. As such with the law as it deals with evidence, the court has at its disposal and active right of discretion to exclude evidence that is technically admissible but creates a prejudicial effect out
Procedural Law and the Bill of Rights
5
of proportion to its evidential value. Thus the rule as it pertains to question of admissibility of certain statements, particularly admissions and confessions. Therefore, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine exists to exclude evidence that is obtained through a constitutional violation.
Two examples in which the exclusionary rule may not apply are the independent-source doctrine and the inevitable-discovery doctrine and possibly the attenuation doctrine. The independent-source doctrine provides an exclusion from the exclusionary rule because it allows evidence to be admissible if the police can prove it was obtained from an independent source that was not connected with a illegal search or seizure. Next, the inevitable-discovery doctrine provides that evidence is admissible if the police can prove that they would have inevitably discovered the evidence anyway by lawful means. Lastly, the attenuation doctrine allows the admission of some evidence even though it was obtained as a result of illegal detention.
The case of Tennessee v. Garner (Edward), et al, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a case that identifies a use of deadly force against a fleeing individual (Garner) who was caught leaving the scene of a burglary wherein he stopped at a 6 foot fence which allowed Policeman Hymon (Elton) to see Garner’s face and hands which reflected no weapon. After ordering Garner to halt, Garner proceeded to climb the fence at which time Hymon shot him with the bullet striking him in the head. Garner died shortly thereafter at the age of 15 years at the hospital.
The actions of Hymon were based upon Tennessee State Statute and official Memphis Police Department policy which authorizes deadly force against a fleeing suspect. The statute
Procedural Law and the Bill of Rights
6
(40-7-108) provides “if, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flees or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest.”
As with all types of gauging relating to police duty and actions the need for determination of the level of force has to be evaluated quickly. In relation to this scenario a warning shot in the air may have resulted in the desired act of ceasing to flee. If Hymon had time to ascertain that the suspect was unarmed and young, the first thought is to effect an arrest not kill, slow the suspect by pinpointing a neutral location to effect a non-serious injury.
Because of the level of seriousness of this case and the deadly outcome from the interpretation of the Tennessee State Statute (40-7-108) Garner’s father (Cleamtee) brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under the Civil Right Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming the City of Memphis, its mayor, the Memphis Police Department, its director and Officer Hymon as defendants. The District Court upheld the statute and judged Hymon’s actions to be constitutional.
Because of Garner’s father continued disagreement with the outcome in the District Court the cases was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit by certiorari whereby the decision was reversed. The Court of Appeals stance on the manner held that the killing of a fleeing suspect falls under the category of “seizure” and for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment and the statute is only constitutional when the act of seizure is reasonable. Therefore, the court found that based on facts presented in this case, the Tennessee Statute failed to properly limit the use of deadly force by reference to the seriousness of the felony.
As to my opinion, a felony cannot be claimed unless processed through the legal system. Even though the commencement of the act reflects in conclusive sight a felonious crime is
Procedural Law and the Bill of Rights
7
ensuing an arrest must follow. Therefore, the act of an officer using deadly force must effectively prove that his life was in danger and that his act needed the gauging and utilizing of deadly force. Further that the common law deals with an active state of being a felon and not a felonious act.
In conclusion, the protective rights of the Fourth Amendment allows a standing for the individual and populace to be protected from a statute deemed unreasonable, intimidating and frightening in the extreme. The causal effect of judging a call as to its level of low severity and ranging to a level of high severity allows the balance and effective judgment to adhere to the Bill of Rights, protective stance of the people and lastly the correct detail and adhering to procedural law, courts, regulations and rules.
References
Tennessee v. Garner. (2017, April 12). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner
Searches and Seizures: The Limitations of the Police. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/searches-and-seizures-the-limitations-of-the-police.html
Warrantless Searches. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Warrantless Searches
Police Stops: What to Do If You Are Pulled Over. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-stops-when-pulled-over-30186.html
Raphael, A., & Yoshimura, D. (2016). Should Evidence Found During a Search Incident to Arrest Be Suppressed if the Arrest Was Based on a Valid Warrant Discovered During an Illegal Detention? Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases, 43(5), 156-160.
Exclusionary rule. (2017, March 23). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule
Arrest. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/arrest.html
Chronology: The Arrest Process. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/chronology-the-arrest-process.html
Arrest, Jail, and Court Process. (2012, April 13). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from https://supportcece.wordpress.com/legal-info/arrest-jail-court-process/
Busby, J. C. (2009, September 17). Probable Cause. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause
What is reasonable suspicion? (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from https://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/what-is-reasonable-suspicion/
Exclusionary rule. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Exclusionary Rule
Definitions Of Probable Cause Vs. Reasonable Suspicion. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://thelawdictionary.org/article/definitions-of-probable-cause-vs-reasonable-suspicion/
A. (2015, March 03). Home. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-substantive-and-vs-procedural-law/
United States Bill of Rights. (2017, April 24). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
Magna Carta. (2017, April 25). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
Procedural law. (2017, March 21). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_law
Tennessee v. Garner: Ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court on the Use of Deadly Force by Police (1986). Historic Documents of 1985.
Walter, A. (2017). Police Brutality: An Overview. Points Of View,
Blume, John H., "Deadly Force in Memphis: Tennessee v. Garner" (1984).Cornell Law Faculty Publications.Paper 273. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/273
References
Page 2
WHEN IS POLICE VIOLENCE JUSTIFIED? (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://docplayer.net/4904373-When-is-police-violence-justified.html
Canales, J. L. (n.d.). Use of Force Truro Police. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from https://www.scribd.com/document/214685823/Use-of-Force-Truro-Police
el final
CRJ325 - CASE STUDY 1- THE OFFICER AND THE DRUG ARREST
THE OFFICER AND THE DRUG ARREST
CASE STUDY ONE
1
The Officer and the Drug Arrest
Strayer University
Felicia McCaw
Professor Christopher J. Abreau
CRJ325
Online Spring 2017
April 16, 2017
The Officer and the Drug Arrest
2
During the course of correct procedure for dealing with everyday police work comes the responsibility of accordance and duty to act on rules and protection of individuals when responding to calls that reflect a criminal activity is ensuing or has ensued. Therefore, attendance to Amendment 4 of the Bill of Rights summarily reflect protection from unreasonable searches and seizures which also pertain to detentions, stops, arrests and searches of people, motor vehicles and places.
Also, is the reflective thought that the individual has constitutional rights under Amendment 14 and as such it protects the process of due process with equal protection to fairness without bias, discrimination, racial profiling or bigotry being an aspect during an interaction between the police or the perk (suspicious individual or party to question). Therefore, any active unfairness levied by the police against a perk is readily challengeable and becomes first a question of fundamental unfairness and next a question of racial intimidation, and finally a question of racial identity and right to live.
Because of this Amendment 5 stands as a right to provide protection against double jeopardy which consist of being punished twice for the same crime, self-incrimination, and the taking of life, liberty, or property without processing due process of law. Intertwined with Amendment 5 is Amendment 6 that provides the right to speedy trial, public trial, impartial jury, right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, right to confront witnesses, right to summon witnesses and right to have assistance by counsel.
As parallel to each protectant are case laws, rule of law and judicial review that actively examine the procedure and processes used in appropriating and apprehending suspects or the question of correctness in actions, steps that may be questionable or in conflict with the
The Officer and the Drug Arrest
3
Constitution and Amendments. Therefore, accountability is underlined and tied closely to the rule of law and as such this prevents the abridging of rights, privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
In support the due process clause and equal protection clause are provisional preventa-tives that restricts and control behavior of the policing authority to allow the perk or populace fairness and equality in treatment as well as staying within the bounds of rules, training and procedural guidelines. In effect because of this Amendment 4 is supportive because it parallels the purpose of fairness and prevents harassment, bias and discrimination that is geared toward racial profiling, stereotypes, and unfounded personal thoughts, concepts and prejudices.
Amendment 5 helps also govern conduct with restrictions and based fairness in equal treatment for all. Amendment 6 is also a parallel to coincide with correct procedure, guidelines and allowance to disclose right to protect self and know the limitation of courts, right to interpretative counsel and ability to challenge and question the accusation or allegation.
As with the due process clause and the equal protection clause both provide the support for the right to due process and right to equal protection. Therefore, the approach, seizure and searches will be done fairly when dealing with a suspicion, reasonable suspicion or a probable cause. Further in relation the case laws, judicial review and rules of law along with the equal protection clause and due process clause work in relational purpose because as scenarios change therefore does regulations and procedures become adjusted as challenges are levied, won, changed and subsequently cause modification in approach as well as policy changes.
The Officer and the Drug Arrest
4
In context, a search is when expected reasonable privacy based upon societal expectation is infringed upon due to suspected crime. Whereas, a seizure of property occurs when there is a questionable right that occurs and leads to confiscation and nullification of an individual’s interest and rights to property if it relates to criminal activity and continuance. As with searches they can be done with consent or without. If consent is not garnered, usual procedures is to facilitate and question and access whether probable cause exist to acquire warrant. A warrantless search is permissible if purpose facilitates and confirms suspicion of criminal activity or has the ability to be confirmed as reasonable suspicion.
Actions that constitute and support a warrantless would be evasion, physical body language, alteration of path when sighting or intersection of police, tips, hotline or an APB. Lastly, a stop would be clarified as a routine detention to question or inquire if it relates to probable displays of criminal activity, unusual driving patterns, furtive actions or blatant disregard of rules and regulations.
In relation to the utilizing of Amendments, constitutional safeguards which relate specifically to the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments is the following example:
Officer Jones is a veteran officer with the Smithville police department. He received information that a citizen living in the local housing project was selling drugs. This information was conveyed to Officer Jones by an anonymous caller to the officer on his personal cell phone. Officer Jones immediately went to the housing project and stopped the citizen as he was leaving his apartment. Officer Jones searched the citizen and found drugs.
First based on reliable informants who provide consistency and relative correctness and reliability, Officer Jones is within his rights as policing authority to intervene and detain and subject the citizen to a warrantless search. The constitutionality of the act is correct and does not compromise Amendment 4 because the search is based on a reliable source and not an active
The Officer and the Drug Arrest
5
attempt to single out and be an active part of racial profiling, bias, discrimination, bigotry or stereotype. Probable cause and reasonable suspicion was established due to the tip and then confirmed by drugs found on the citizen.
In this scenario, all three ways based on a tip the warrantless search, probable cause and reasonable suspicion work in compliance and as a parallel to approach, question, search and arrest due to finding illicit drugs on person and in possession of citizen. In support, the People v. Loretta is a similar scenario that assist in supporting the actions in searching for drugs in relation to mannerisms, secretive behavior and hidden illegal substances on person. Consequently, as in this case with Officer Jones Amendment 4 was not violated, Amendment 5 was granted with the reading of the Miranda Rights, Amendment 6 as parallel to Amendment 5 provides protection to not incriminate self and wait until counsel is present to answer questions and lastly Amendment 14 provides the right to due process and equal protection during the arrest. interim, before and after trial.
References
CRIMINAL LAW – FOURTH AMENDMENT – NINTH CIRCUIT CONSIDERS COMMUNITY’S RACIAL TENSION WITH POLICE IN FINDING ILLEGAL SEIZURE AND LACK OF VOLUNTARY CONSENT. United States v. Washington, 490F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2007). (2008). Harvard Law Review, 121(6), 1669-1676.
laquinta, J. (2014). INTERPRETING SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST IN NEW YORK: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE. Touro Law Review, 30(4), 1071-1100.
Rashkover, C. (2014). JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICE INTRUSIONS. Touro Law Review, 30(4), 1101-1120.
Search and seizure. (2017, April 09). Retrieved April 16, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure
el final
CASE STUDY ONE
1
The Officer and the Drug Arrest
Strayer University
Felicia McCaw
Professor Christopher J. Abreau
CRJ325
Online Spring 2017
April 16, 2017
The Officer and the Drug Arrest
2
During the course of correct procedure for dealing with everyday police work comes the responsibility of accordance and duty to act on rules and protection of individuals when responding to calls that reflect a criminal activity is ensuing or has ensued. Therefore, attendance to Amendment 4 of the Bill of Rights summarily reflect protection from unreasonable searches and seizures which also pertain to detentions, stops, arrests and searches of people, motor vehicles and places.
Also, is the reflective thought that the individual has constitutional rights under Amendment 14 and as such it protects the process of due process with equal protection to fairness without bias, discrimination, racial profiling or bigotry being an aspect during an interaction between the police or the perk (suspicious individual or party to question). Therefore, any active unfairness levied by the police against a perk is readily challengeable and becomes first a question of fundamental unfairness and next a question of racial intimidation, and finally a question of racial identity and right to live.
Because of this Amendment 5 stands as a right to provide protection against double jeopardy which consist of being punished twice for the same crime, self-incrimination, and the taking of life, liberty, or property without processing due process of law. Intertwined with Amendment 5 is Amendment 6 that provides the right to speedy trial, public trial, impartial jury, right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, right to confront witnesses, right to summon witnesses and right to have assistance by counsel.
As parallel to each protectant are case laws, rule of law and judicial review that actively examine the procedure and processes used in appropriating and apprehending suspects or the question of correctness in actions, steps that may be questionable or in conflict with the
The Officer and the Drug Arrest
3
Constitution and Amendments. Therefore, accountability is underlined and tied closely to the rule of law and as such this prevents the abridging of rights, privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
In support the due process clause and equal protection clause are provisional preventa-tives that restricts and control behavior of the policing authority to allow the perk or populace fairness and equality in treatment as well as staying within the bounds of rules, training and procedural guidelines. In effect because of this Amendment 4 is supportive because it parallels the purpose of fairness and prevents harassment, bias and discrimination that is geared toward racial profiling, stereotypes, and unfounded personal thoughts, concepts and prejudices.
Amendment 5 helps also govern conduct with restrictions and based fairness in equal treatment for all. Amendment 6 is also a parallel to coincide with correct procedure, guidelines and allowance to disclose right to protect self and know the limitation of courts, right to interpretative counsel and ability to challenge and question the accusation or allegation.
As with the due process clause and the equal protection clause both provide the support for the right to due process and right to equal protection. Therefore, the approach, seizure and searches will be done fairly when dealing with a suspicion, reasonable suspicion or a probable cause. Further in relation the case laws, judicial review and rules of law along with the equal protection clause and due process clause work in relational purpose because as scenarios change therefore does regulations and procedures become adjusted as challenges are levied, won, changed and subsequently cause modification in approach as well as policy changes.
The Officer and the Drug Arrest
4
In context, a search is when expected reasonable privacy based upon societal expectation is infringed upon due to suspected crime. Whereas, a seizure of property occurs when there is a questionable right that occurs and leads to confiscation and nullification of an individual’s interest and rights to property if it relates to criminal activity and continuance. As with searches they can be done with consent or without. If consent is not garnered, usual procedures is to facilitate and question and access whether probable cause exist to acquire warrant. A warrantless search is permissible if purpose facilitates and confirms suspicion of criminal activity or has the ability to be confirmed as reasonable suspicion.
Actions that constitute and support a warrantless would be evasion, physical body language, alteration of path when sighting or intersection of police, tips, hotline or an APB. Lastly, a stop would be clarified as a routine detention to question or inquire if it relates to probable displays of criminal activity, unusual driving patterns, furtive actions or blatant disregard of rules and regulations.
In relation to the utilizing of Amendments, constitutional safeguards which relate specifically to the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments is the following example:
Officer Jones is a veteran officer with the Smithville police department. He received information that a citizen living in the local housing project was selling drugs. This information was conveyed to Officer Jones by an anonymous caller to the officer on his personal cell phone. Officer Jones immediately went to the housing project and stopped the citizen as he was leaving his apartment. Officer Jones searched the citizen and found drugs.
First based on reliable informants who provide consistency and relative correctness and reliability, Officer Jones is within his rights as policing authority to intervene and detain and subject the citizen to a warrantless search. The constitutionality of the act is correct and does not compromise Amendment 4 because the search is based on a reliable source and not an active
The Officer and the Drug Arrest
5
attempt to single out and be an active part of racial profiling, bias, discrimination, bigotry or stereotype. Probable cause and reasonable suspicion was established due to the tip and then confirmed by drugs found on the citizen.
In this scenario, all three ways based on a tip the warrantless search, probable cause and reasonable suspicion work in compliance and as a parallel to approach, question, search and arrest due to finding illicit drugs on person and in possession of citizen. In support, the People v. Loretta is a similar scenario that assist in supporting the actions in searching for drugs in relation to mannerisms, secretive behavior and hidden illegal substances on person. Consequently, as in this case with Officer Jones Amendment 4 was not violated, Amendment 5 was granted with the reading of the Miranda Rights, Amendment 6 as parallel to Amendment 5 provides protection to not incriminate self and wait until counsel is present to answer questions and lastly Amendment 14 provides the right to due process and equal protection during the arrest. interim, before and after trial.
References
CRIMINAL LAW – FOURTH AMENDMENT – NINTH CIRCUIT CONSIDERS COMMUNITY’S RACIAL TENSION WITH POLICE IN FINDING ILLEGAL SEIZURE AND LACK OF VOLUNTARY CONSENT. United States v. Washington, 490F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2007). (2008). Harvard Law Review, 121(6), 1669-1676.
laquinta, J. (2014). INTERPRETING SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST IN NEW YORK: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE. Touro Law Review, 30(4), 1071-1100.
Rashkover, C. (2014). JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICE INTRUSIONS. Touro Law Review, 30(4), 1101-1120.
Search and seizure. (2017, April 09). Retrieved April 16, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure
el final
CRJ325 - WEEK 11 - DISCUSSION 11
"Criminal Procedure and Changes"
As it relates to your choice of professions in the field of criminal justice, what would you consider the most important thing that you learned from this course?
Some of the important lessons I learned are the dealing with cases and the right to protest an act that has been done in accordance with policing. Further that the possibility that an act may be racially motivated and be embroiled with prejudice and bias. For example, an act of a valid stop and what constitutes the right of the driver and policeman may be colored by a DWB (driving while black) scenario but in order to establish an unracial attitude is by the professionalism of the officer and is in correlation with a violation or mistake in driving to constitute the stop, or stop to question an unfamiliar vehicle in a secluded area.
Further when the driver becomes a perk the right to search is based on the plain view doctrine when tools of criminality are visually evident. Also, how a mistake can cause a legal flaw and cause all evidence to be discarded due to not following protocol. Lastly, I feel that if a procedure is thought out and stays within the groundwork presented all arrests and evidence can be useable and be submitted. Additionally, that consistency and attention to detail plays a tremendous part in retaining stability, clarity, truth and justice.
Also, how the Amendments work as protectives for citizens and controls the authority placed in the police and additional legal departments which defuses some of the fear of the average citizen when they know they can try to defend themselves and have an opportunity to know their rights..
In your opinion, discuss at least two (2) possible changes to current criminal procedure that you can foresee in the second half of the 21st century.
Two possible changes to current criminal procedure that I foresee in the second half of the twenty-first century consist of required law classes, changes of gathering and processing evidence, different procedure in processing suspects, a possible visual scan that penetrates clothing, outerwear which locates hidden weapons (mobile x-ray scan). Further an easier method to process and allocate judgments for sentencing.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I love the sources of rights because it is a victory for those who feel overwhelmed and lacking of power. As justice the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and the 14th Amendments are the rutter to our ship and with capable hands at the helm we are able to prevail and live a truthful, just life. Further, by the interplay of the Amendments it is always a sigh of relief to finally be afforded justice, right and truth to be handed with care to hands work worn and weary.
I feel that a preliminary hearing may not be deemed valuable but should allow determination of an act of fairness and objectivity is being done. A preliminary hearing is like a snapshot and overview and can determine if a citizen is to be bound over for trial.
As technology grows it is a mass field of information that will probably take a hugh sifter to find what is needed to enable finds in a digital world and an okay to use in cases.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I learned more about the criminal justice side and its intricate parts that work hand-in-hand. The Constitution will always be the fascinating lure and the Amendments to fight an act that a person may feel is unfair.
As scenario changes and the exclusionary rule is rendered inept for a situation the the proposed need for new laws evolve more to handle new situations.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I also learned a lot about search and seizures and that a seizure is considered to be apparent when a bullet is removed from a suspect. Also, when the example revealed a suspect running from a burglary and was shot in the head this is also revealed as a seizure. Even though the act is a seizure I feel that the right to act should be to wound, slow and not kill.
Further I feel that to be correct and applicable the information on the search warrant must be clear, accurate, and done within the timeframe and area to be correct and trustworthy.
Thank you.
Felicia
As it relates to your choice of professions in the field of criminal justice, what would you consider the most important thing that you learned from this course?
Some of the important lessons I learned are the dealing with cases and the right to protest an act that has been done in accordance with policing. Further that the possibility that an act may be racially motivated and be embroiled with prejudice and bias. For example, an act of a valid stop and what constitutes the right of the driver and policeman may be colored by a DWB (driving while black) scenario but in order to establish an unracial attitude is by the professionalism of the officer and is in correlation with a violation or mistake in driving to constitute the stop, or stop to question an unfamiliar vehicle in a secluded area.
Further when the driver becomes a perk the right to search is based on the plain view doctrine when tools of criminality are visually evident. Also, how a mistake can cause a legal flaw and cause all evidence to be discarded due to not following protocol. Lastly, I feel that if a procedure is thought out and stays within the groundwork presented all arrests and evidence can be useable and be submitted. Additionally, that consistency and attention to detail plays a tremendous part in retaining stability, clarity, truth and justice.
Also, how the Amendments work as protectives for citizens and controls the authority placed in the police and additional legal departments which defuses some of the fear of the average citizen when they know they can try to defend themselves and have an opportunity to know their rights..
In your opinion, discuss at least two (2) possible changes to current criminal procedure that you can foresee in the second half of the 21st century.
Two possible changes to current criminal procedure that I foresee in the second half of the twenty-first century consist of required law classes, changes of gathering and processing evidence, different procedure in processing suspects, a possible visual scan that penetrates clothing, outerwear which locates hidden weapons (mobile x-ray scan). Further an easier method to process and allocate judgments for sentencing.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I love the sources of rights because it is a victory for those who feel overwhelmed and lacking of power. As justice the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and the 14th Amendments are the rutter to our ship and with capable hands at the helm we are able to prevail and live a truthful, just life. Further, by the interplay of the Amendments it is always a sigh of relief to finally be afforded justice, right and truth to be handed with care to hands work worn and weary.
I feel that a preliminary hearing may not be deemed valuable but should allow determination of an act of fairness and objectivity is being done. A preliminary hearing is like a snapshot and overview and can determine if a citizen is to be bound over for trial.
As technology grows it is a mass field of information that will probably take a hugh sifter to find what is needed to enable finds in a digital world and an okay to use in cases.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I learned more about the criminal justice side and its intricate parts that work hand-in-hand. The Constitution will always be the fascinating lure and the Amendments to fight an act that a person may feel is unfair.
As scenario changes and the exclusionary rule is rendered inept for a situation the the proposed need for new laws evolve more to handle new situations.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I also learned a lot about search and seizures and that a seizure is considered to be apparent when a bullet is removed from a suspect. Also, when the example revealed a suspect running from a burglary and was shot in the head this is also revealed as a seizure. Even though the act is a seizure I feel that the right to act should be to wound, slow and not kill.
Further I feel that to be correct and applicable the information on the search warrant must be clear, accurate, and done within the timeframe and area to be correct and trustworthy.
Thank you.
Felicia
CRJ325 - WEEK 10 - DISCUSSION 10
"Electronic Surveillance"
Read the article found on the New York Times titled, “Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts” found at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=all. Next, support your opinion for or against the use of electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens without court orders in cases of suspected terrorist activities.
In regard to the use of electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens without court orders in cases of suspected terrorist activities random investigations are in violation of the Fourth Amendment. But if probable cause as well as reasonable suspicion exists then this in itself is a lever to submit to warrant or otherwise because of the elusiveness of captured evidence.
Although the infringement of expected privacy may be argued still exists the need to halt and challenge any inkling of a terrorism act hidden in adverse acts, deeds or speech that attack country, man and people. As a horrific day in this country of 9/11 this is the beginning of a true fight in this country to fight those who would destroy this nation.
Marking a threat to freedom this prevails as an insidious, blatant hate of all in this country and its right. Affording the Fourth Amendment is an admirable act but not at the cost of American lives and right to freedom and progressive advantages and evolving.
Dancing between the Federal Commission Act allows the corrective procedure to be followed but again the right is to protect our turf as the Eagle flies high we stand forth against the threat hot and ready. Acts of treason are paralleled to drug scrutiny and the right to move quick and fast is necessary to check, foil and control any threat and as such the need to do what is necessary is law and legal in this land.
Terrorism and Treason (T & T) have a face of dual purpose…a traitor to his race and country is an Achilles heel that will not be allowed without check but will be taken to task as any destroyer of this country. Lastly, I am in support of foiling both these acts and the means to catch and imprison all.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO TEACHER AND CO-STUDENTS
Hello Professor Abreu and fellow classmates.
I would like to invite you to my personal portfolio ... its easier to keep all info on a website for future employers or for chances of employment.
my website is:
feliciaswritingjournal.blogspot.com/ and it revolves around my mother who I love with all my heart and dad who pushed me to work and allowed me to dream. A sweet grandmother who went to college in her seventies and got her degree and a wonderful Uncle Willie and beautiful Aunt Daisy (second mom) who stood for me when I got sick and had to retire and other beautiful and courageous uncles. All in service to God and this country.
I have loved being in this class.
Please venture forth and see a dream come true that I am fighting tooth and nail for.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
The complexity of finding terrorist activity is a problem. Imagine the vastness of America and its holdings that the government has to survey and scrutinize. It is a tremendous load and an act of terrorism must be dealt with before all legality is upsurped and criminal acts are hidden left and right. What is the purpose of terrorism? Its purpose is to destroy all legal sanctions, protections, structuralized government and freedom of the people and reverse a free democracy to a hate-filled tyrant hell-bent on controlling all. It has to be dealt with and the Fourth Amendment affords a courtesy of privacy but this will not allow hiding beneath it.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I agree but the depth of electronic surveillance also includes verbal and physical tracking as well as other methods. People suspected of terrorist acts is based on tactical strategy and it is done based on reasonable suspicion and probable cause that must be there to warrant and not on personal feelings. Also, I agree that it is life, real and an act that hopes everyone is sleeping while they erode everyone psychologically and attack internally to destroy the youth's right to safety, brain washing technique, seduction and play, trickery, bribes and anything else to destroy the image and respect afforded to all in this country and disrespect to our leaders.
This is what terrorism is...a different avenue but the same trick or treat style. Holding a country and people strong means no compromise and doing duty first and leisure lastly. Also, terrorist recruits find out the truth...they are not needed if the objective is foiled and our freedom is again and again showed to all and that each life is valuable.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I agree with you but the need to always afford the Fourth Amendment is necessary. But terrorism is not always situated in one place...it is elusive as "h" and takes finesse and tactical manuevers to catch these clever clever people. Further it is the average joe they use...who would suspect them? Further any active destruction of any business activity with intent is conspiracy and terrorism. All need to be stopped.
Thank you.
Felicia
Read the article found on the New York Times titled, “Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts” found at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=all. Next, support your opinion for or against the use of electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens without court orders in cases of suspected terrorist activities.
In regard to the use of electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens without court orders in cases of suspected terrorist activities random investigations are in violation of the Fourth Amendment. But if probable cause as well as reasonable suspicion exists then this in itself is a lever to submit to warrant or otherwise because of the elusiveness of captured evidence.
Although the infringement of expected privacy may be argued still exists the need to halt and challenge any inkling of a terrorism act hidden in adverse acts, deeds or speech that attack country, man and people. As a horrific day in this country of 9/11 this is the beginning of a true fight in this country to fight those who would destroy this nation.
Marking a threat to freedom this prevails as an insidious, blatant hate of all in this country and its right. Affording the Fourth Amendment is an admirable act but not at the cost of American lives and right to freedom and progressive advantages and evolving.
Dancing between the Federal Commission Act allows the corrective procedure to be followed but again the right is to protect our turf as the Eagle flies high we stand forth against the threat hot and ready. Acts of treason are paralleled to drug scrutiny and the right to move quick and fast is necessary to check, foil and control any threat and as such the need to do what is necessary is law and legal in this land.
Terrorism and Treason (T & T) have a face of dual purpose…a traitor to his race and country is an Achilles heel that will not be allowed without check but will be taken to task as any destroyer of this country. Lastly, I am in support of foiling both these acts and the means to catch and imprison all.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO TEACHER AND CO-STUDENTS
Hello Professor Abreu and fellow classmates.
I would like to invite you to my personal portfolio ... its easier to keep all info on a website for future employers or for chances of employment.
my website is:
feliciaswritingjournal.blogspot.com/ and it revolves around my mother who I love with all my heart and dad who pushed me to work and allowed me to dream. A sweet grandmother who went to college in her seventies and got her degree and a wonderful Uncle Willie and beautiful Aunt Daisy (second mom) who stood for me when I got sick and had to retire and other beautiful and courageous uncles. All in service to God and this country.
I have loved being in this class.
Please venture forth and see a dream come true that I am fighting tooth and nail for.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
The complexity of finding terrorist activity is a problem. Imagine the vastness of America and its holdings that the government has to survey and scrutinize. It is a tremendous load and an act of terrorism must be dealt with before all legality is upsurped and criminal acts are hidden left and right. What is the purpose of terrorism? Its purpose is to destroy all legal sanctions, protections, structuralized government and freedom of the people and reverse a free democracy to a hate-filled tyrant hell-bent on controlling all. It has to be dealt with and the Fourth Amendment affords a courtesy of privacy but this will not allow hiding beneath it.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I agree but the depth of electronic surveillance also includes verbal and physical tracking as well as other methods. People suspected of terrorist acts is based on tactical strategy and it is done based on reasonable suspicion and probable cause that must be there to warrant and not on personal feelings. Also, I agree that it is life, real and an act that hopes everyone is sleeping while they erode everyone psychologically and attack internally to destroy the youth's right to safety, brain washing technique, seduction and play, trickery, bribes and anything else to destroy the image and respect afforded to all in this country and disrespect to our leaders.
This is what terrorism is...a different avenue but the same trick or treat style. Holding a country and people strong means no compromise and doing duty first and leisure lastly. Also, terrorist recruits find out the truth...they are not needed if the objective is foiled and our freedom is again and again showed to all and that each life is valuable.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I agree with you but the need to always afford the Fourth Amendment is necessary. But terrorism is not always situated in one place...it is elusive as "h" and takes finesse and tactical manuevers to catch these clever clever people. Further it is the average joe they use...who would suspect them? Further any active destruction of any business activity with intent is conspiracy and terrorism. All need to be stopped.
Thank you.
Felicia
CRJ325 - WEEK 9 - DISCUSSION 9
"Death Penalty"
Read the article titled, “Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate” located at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Next, take a stand for or against the death penalty and discuss the effectiveness of the death penalty in preventing murders.
In the consideration of the death penalty comes various viewpoints of contemplation those against and those for. As the death penalty and administering of the conclusive state of execution it conclusively allows the objective nature of surmising its purpose to halt the killing and murdering of innocent people.
In my effective capacity to understand the horrendous loss and sheer horror of a person’s life assaulted and destroyed by deliberate animal purpose I feel as an active agreement of the correct due has been attributed to any who takes a life and that is execution. A life for a life is a philosophy threaded and embedded in any court system in any country and based on biblical principle.
Therefore, I am with the stance of a needed death penalty in Michigan. I feel that a murderer can never pay his dues in society or to society because he or she will kill again when released back into society and cause serious mayhem. If a compiled report is done this will probably reflect again my theory a killing has been repeated by them.
Further these killers are teaching killing to the young and hiding predatorial acts being taught. Once again, I am for the death penalty in this state and any other that needs it. As part of a criminal justice program, the duty is to keep the populace safe and as such seeing and knowing has to be acted upon fast. If you see it, realize it that it is actively being done.
A nation filled with danger for women and children to be savaged and killed is not a nation to own. Lastly, as a negative enforcement the death penalty is effective and should deter acts of harmful, murderous threat. Further, when placed on the “death bed” it does not facilitate to have them incarcerated for years and years until the summarily charged execution. If the flow and change alters an act then the consequence is weighed more seriously when contemplation of acting on a criminal act.
Identify and discuss one (1) major difference between State Tort Cases and Federal Section 1983.
In the United States are two court systems the Federal and State Court. These two court systems are divided into two areas of law: criminal and civil law. Criminal law deals with non-felonious and felonious acts of criminal misdeeds. Civil law purpose is to compensate individuals whose person or property has been wrongfully damaged by the conduct of another.
A tort is described as a private or civil wrong or injury which would include actins for bad faith breach of contract and will cause the court to provide a remedy and action for damages. Torts of each state include the acts of two torts: Intentional and Negligence. Under the intentional are trespass, intentional conduct damaging personal property and to actual bodily battery, assault, false imprisonment, and infliction of emotional distress. Whereas negligence is concurrently a purpose that it does not have to be intentional but the conduct is enough to cause damage.
In contrast, Federal Section 1983 relatively is based upon a violation of a constitutional right and prudently by an actor under state law or authority. Therefore, the capacity of violation is inclusive of beatings, cruel and unusual punishments. Consequently, who is at fault is the individual in his or her personal capacity, official capacity with the employee as well. There is no vicarious liability unless the ability to prove a violation exists and is relatively associated with governmental actions thereby compromising the government and public officials.
Thank you.
Felicia
http://www.fwlaw.com/news/186-tort-law-united-states
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/immunity/FTC_v_1983.htm
https://www.pagepate.com/experience/civil-litigation/section-1983-and-bivens-liability/
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I agree that it effectively changes a thought. Anyone who conspires to murder is a threat to the whole populace. I agree that the ripple effect is there and being cloaked, disguised and deliberately nurtured in recruits and the vulnerable youth.
I agree that something that happened in a few minutes changes everyone life and not always for the better. Further I agree that these events leave internal scars, emotional baggage and generates a thristing hate to hurt someone. Viewing criminal acts against one causes severe levels of indifference and become common place acts that are accepted by all. Learning to take a stand against wrongful death and murder is the only way to prevent emulation.
Torts and Federal Section 1983 are comparatively the same because they are addressing wrongs and violation of constitutional rights guaranteed to everyone. Sometimes it is not the act of monetary compensation but the right to protest in a country of EQUALITY.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I appreciate your point but the death penalty is a major deterrent when a state has nothing but incarceration and early parole. I am agreeable with instilling the death penalty in this state (Michigan) and enforcing because high rates of murder and lack of concern and care for people as a whole but viewed as a minimal part causes more violence, secrecy and treachery. The lack of concept that these acts of criminality will not hit them one day does not dawn on them.
I agree but there are sometimes federal agents who have unfortunately crossed the line and became involved in torts and suffered the consequences. Also, there are so many torts that exist they are too numerous to list.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I agree that the police can be an intricate part because of accusation of police brutality, assault and infliction of emotional distress, etc. Also, constitutional rights can be violated by state and federal law with torts an applicable part also. Proving the level of governmental involvement is the most difficult part but is an inclusive factor that cannot be overlooked.
I agree that mass killing of individuals deserve the death penalty for it is an assault and war against this country. If the investigation proves the person(s) is guilty without a doubt then it is God's will.
Thank you.
Felicia
Read the article titled, “Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate” located at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Next, take a stand for or against the death penalty and discuss the effectiveness of the death penalty in preventing murders.
In the consideration of the death penalty comes various viewpoints of contemplation those against and those for. As the death penalty and administering of the conclusive state of execution it conclusively allows the objective nature of surmising its purpose to halt the killing and murdering of innocent people.
In my effective capacity to understand the horrendous loss and sheer horror of a person’s life assaulted and destroyed by deliberate animal purpose I feel as an active agreement of the correct due has been attributed to any who takes a life and that is execution. A life for a life is a philosophy threaded and embedded in any court system in any country and based on biblical principle.
Therefore, I am with the stance of a needed death penalty in Michigan. I feel that a murderer can never pay his dues in society or to society because he or she will kill again when released back into society and cause serious mayhem. If a compiled report is done this will probably reflect again my theory a killing has been repeated by them.
Further these killers are teaching killing to the young and hiding predatorial acts being taught. Once again, I am for the death penalty in this state and any other that needs it. As part of a criminal justice program, the duty is to keep the populace safe and as such seeing and knowing has to be acted upon fast. If you see it, realize it that it is actively being done.
A nation filled with danger for women and children to be savaged and killed is not a nation to own. Lastly, as a negative enforcement the death penalty is effective and should deter acts of harmful, murderous threat. Further, when placed on the “death bed” it does not facilitate to have them incarcerated for years and years until the summarily charged execution. If the flow and change alters an act then the consequence is weighed more seriously when contemplation of acting on a criminal act.
Identify and discuss one (1) major difference between State Tort Cases and Federal Section 1983.
In the United States are two court systems the Federal and State Court. These two court systems are divided into two areas of law: criminal and civil law. Criminal law deals with non-felonious and felonious acts of criminal misdeeds. Civil law purpose is to compensate individuals whose person or property has been wrongfully damaged by the conduct of another.
A tort is described as a private or civil wrong or injury which would include actins for bad faith breach of contract and will cause the court to provide a remedy and action for damages. Torts of each state include the acts of two torts: Intentional and Negligence. Under the intentional are trespass, intentional conduct damaging personal property and to actual bodily battery, assault, false imprisonment, and infliction of emotional distress. Whereas negligence is concurrently a purpose that it does not have to be intentional but the conduct is enough to cause damage.
In contrast, Federal Section 1983 relatively is based upon a violation of a constitutional right and prudently by an actor under state law or authority. Therefore, the capacity of violation is inclusive of beatings, cruel and unusual punishments. Consequently, who is at fault is the individual in his or her personal capacity, official capacity with the employee as well. There is no vicarious liability unless the ability to prove a violation exists and is relatively associated with governmental actions thereby compromising the government and public officials.
Thank you.
Felicia
http://www.fwlaw.com/news/186-tort-law-united-states
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/immunity/FTC_v_1983.htm
https://www.pagepate.com/experience/civil-litigation/section-1983-and-bivens-liability/
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I agree that it effectively changes a thought. Anyone who conspires to murder is a threat to the whole populace. I agree that the ripple effect is there and being cloaked, disguised and deliberately nurtured in recruits and the vulnerable youth.
I agree that something that happened in a few minutes changes everyone life and not always for the better. Further I agree that these events leave internal scars, emotional baggage and generates a thristing hate to hurt someone. Viewing criminal acts against one causes severe levels of indifference and become common place acts that are accepted by all. Learning to take a stand against wrongful death and murder is the only way to prevent emulation.
Torts and Federal Section 1983 are comparatively the same because they are addressing wrongs and violation of constitutional rights guaranteed to everyone. Sometimes it is not the act of monetary compensation but the right to protest in a country of EQUALITY.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I appreciate your point but the death penalty is a major deterrent when a state has nothing but incarceration and early parole. I am agreeable with instilling the death penalty in this state (Michigan) and enforcing because high rates of murder and lack of concern and care for people as a whole but viewed as a minimal part causes more violence, secrecy and treachery. The lack of concept that these acts of criminality will not hit them one day does not dawn on them.
I agree but there are sometimes federal agents who have unfortunately crossed the line and became involved in torts and suffered the consequences. Also, there are so many torts that exist they are too numerous to list.
Thank you.
Felicia
REPLY TO CO-STUDENT
I agree that the police can be an intricate part because of accusation of police brutality, assault and infliction of emotional distress, etc. Also, constitutional rights can be violated by state and federal law with torts an applicable part also. Proving the level of governmental involvement is the most difficult part but is an inclusive factor that cannot be overlooked.
I agree that mass killing of individuals deserve the death penalty for it is an assault and war against this country. If the investigation proves the person(s) is guilty without a doubt then it is God's will.
Thank you.
Felicia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
