Crime and Protection in America - Assignment Example

? Chapter problems Today many security personnel are “private police,” yet Fourth Amendment protection has been extended only to those searches conducted by government officials. What arguments can be made for and against expanding the prohibitions of the Fourth Amendment to include security personnel? America has had a major growth in the security industry. Sources show that there are twice as many security guards as compared to public law enforcers. This increase may make people feel secure. However, the courts and government officials claim that the feeling is misplaced considering the fact that most of the “private police” go against the private individual human rights acts (Feinman, 2010). The fourth Amendment to the U.S.A, states that human rights should not be violated from acts pertaining to unreasonable search and seizures (Scheb, 2011). The supreme court of the United States describes the security personnel as uniformed and armed private actors. In addition, if the security personnel are to be included in the Fourth Amendment protection, then they should be ready to serve the citizens just like the normal government officials (Cunningham & Taylor, 1984). This will ensure that crime and violence is curbed in all the states that have been experiencing increased crime rates. 6. What is the rationale for excluding from trial evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment? Is this a compelling justification for the exclusion of criminal evidence from the trial of a defendant accused of a serious felony such as aggravated battery? The main reason that is behind the exclusion from trial evidence obtained in the fourth Amendment may be due to the security officers (Hougan, 1978). It has been noted that the security officers are under estimated in their services. This is due to the fact that they are excluded from the Fourth Amendment protection. In cases of serious felony crimes such as aggravated battery then the defendant should be punished according to the law (Gagel, 1995). However, when the court finds out that the case was discovered by security personnel, then constitutional rules of criminal procedure do not apply (Cunningham & Taylor, 1984). This justification of crimes is however, wrong since all crimes should be punished by law without discrimination of the security guards consent (Scheb, 2011). Since most of these guards are employed by the city government then they are required by the court to comply with the constitutional requirements. The court also proposes that instead of the private police arresting people for crimes committed, they should equip them with the Miranda laws (Cunningham & Taylor, 1984). 8. The Supreme Court has created a “good-faith” exception to the exclusionary rule where police rely on a search warrant that is later held to be invalid because the magistrate erred in finding probable cause for a search. Should the good-faith exception be extended to cases where police acting in good faith conduct warrantless searches that are later held to be unlawful? In the Fourth Amendment law, the term “good faith” is used to refer to the reasonableness state of a police officer in the belief of the existence of a warrant that is in fact invalid (Hougan, 1978). In a criminal prosecution, there is no exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement that all seizures and searches are reasonable in line with the good faith exception. Moreover, when the police violate this Amendment, the evidence is inadmissible to the victim of the search or seizure. Therefore, the only instance where a good faith is necessary is when police rely on a warrant in case of a search or a seizure (Feinman, 2010). When an officer performs a search based on his/ her own facts, and not one the basis of a warrant, then it is hard to claim that the police officer committed an unreasonable mistake. However, if a warrant or any other official authorization of search is required, then the police officer can be reported to have violated an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights if he/ she proceeds with the search in the absence of the document (Feinman, 2010). The warrant prevents the police officer from independent decision-making. 1. Practically speaking, what is the difference between “probable cause” and “reasonable suspicion”? How long can police detain a suspect based on reasonable suspicion? The terms “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” are used by officials of the law-enforcement sector when they are investigating the crime. Probable cause can be described as the level of certainty that falls short of reasonable doubt and is often erroneous (Feinman, 2010). An example of probable cause falls right within the traffic sector. In case one, one is searched and found without anything considered unlawful does not mean that the police officer has gone against the person’s Fourth Amendment rights. On the other hand, reasonable suspicion applies in the case whereby the police officer suspects that a crime was either about to be committed, in the process of being committed or was to be committed (Hougan, 1978). The legal repercussions to a reasonable suspicion is detention for a very brief while a probable cause may demand for a search warrant and even arrest in case the crime is said to have been committed (Cunningham & Taylor, 1984). Therefore, the difference between the two terms is that probable cause is a step ahead of a reasonable suspicion of a crime (Hougan, 1978). 4. In the Miranda case, the Supreme Court released a convicted rapist to impose a requirement that police advise suspects of their constitutional rights before conducting interrogations. Was the Court’s decision a wise one? What has been the impact of the Miranda decision on law enforcement? In the Miranda case, we get to hear about Ernesto Miranda; a 23-year-old who was arrested and directly taken to the police station in Phoenix, Arizona (Cunningham & Taylor, 1984). He was accused of rape-kidnapping. He was found guilty after being questioned by the police. However, Miranda had not been given the opportunity to consult his lawyer during the questioning. Miranda’s confession did not satisfy the standards of the constitution that the court was to promulgate in his case. Miranda appealed to the United States Supreme Court in relation to his conviction. His lawyer claimed that the police had violated Miranda’s Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination (Feinman, 2010). In a way, the court had made a good decision. Therefore, this led to the introduction of the Miranda law. The law informs a suspect on arrest that he/ she has the right to remain silent for anything he/ she speak will be used against him/ her in the court of law (Hougan, 1978). The suspect also has the right to contact his/ her attorney. This therefore ruled out the unfamiliar arrest procedures. 9. Are the courts correct in limiting the scope of the Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination Clause to verbal statements so that there is no constitutional protection against compulsory police identification procedures? What would be the implications for law enforcement if the courts included physical evidence like fingerprints or handwriting samples within the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege? Self-incrimination is the act of accusing yourself of a crime that you can be prosecuted of (Feinman, 2010). This accusation can occur directly or indirectly through either pressure from other individuals, or interrogation from the state officials. However, the Fifth Amendment prevents suspects from incriminating themselves through force from the state officials. The courts are absolutely right on the limitations they have set on the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause (Feinman, 2010). The self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment has some problems. First, the document is ancient and does not contain modern analogues. Secondly, the Fifth Amendment prohibits a defendant to be a witness against himself/ herself. If a confession is obtained from a defendant while violating the Miranda law, but not violating the self-incrimination clause, then the court wonders why not all states are free to admit all confessions (Cunningham & Taylor, 1984). Moreover, if courts included physical evidence then, the law enforcement capability would be higher. In close relation to these evidence materials, the chief culprits would be easily caught even without self-incrimination (Cunningham & Taylor, 1984). 2. A police officer on night patrol saw a car parked off a dirt road in an area known to be a “lovers’ lane.” As his cruiser approached the car, he observed a male and a female sitting inside. He noticed the male occupant make a movement that the officer interpreted as an attempt to hide something under the seat. The officer approached the vehicle and directed the occupants to get out. As they did, he observed a marijuana “roach” in the open ashtray. The officer then reached under the front seat and retrieved a small quantity of marijuana. The officer placed both individuals under arrest. In court, the officer admitted that he was not concerned for his safety but simply had a “hunch” that the couple could be “doing drugs.” Did the officer make a legal arrest? Why or why not? Marijuana is an illegal drug in most states of the world (Cunningham & Taylor, 1984). The officer in this case made a legal arrest considering that the hard drug is illegal in most countries. Moreover, the incident turned out to be a reasonable suspicion that prompted the police officer to search the car. This led to the suspicion of the police officer turning out to be a true one. The arrest was appropriate to make in order for the couple to explain the source of the marijuana they had. It might be true that the couple were doing drugs. This is due to the instance that we are told of the male’s suspicious movement to hide something away from the police officer. The arrest can be termed as legal due to the fact that, they were found with the evidence of doing a criminal act. Even though we are not sure if the couple were not doing drugs, the evidence found on them was enough to justify a case against them. 1. Have the courts gone too far or not far enough in requiring that indigent defendants be represented by counsel at public expense? The courts have not gone too far in requiring that defendants be represented by counsel. This is because the attorneys also follow the Miranda law which requires defendants should be able to communicate to their attorneys in case they are arrested. In the criminal justice system there was an increase in the criminal defense job that resulted from the court’s mandate to provide counsel to indigents (Cunningham & Taylor, 1984). The advantage of the fact that defendants are represented by counsel was put forward to make sure that the truth can be revealed and that they can be able to face their judgments wholly (Hougan, 1978). This ensures that the Fifth Amendment rights of an individual are also protected from abuse by the interrogation officers (Scheb, 2011). 9. Compare the advantages and disadvantages to the defendant of insisting on the right to a speedy trial. A defendant can insist for a speedy trial. The advantages posed include: public trial, right to trial by an impartial jury, confrontation of adverse witnesses, notice of pending criminal charges, right to counsel and compulsory process for witnesses who were favorable (Feinman, 2010). There are advantages and disadvantages related to a speedy trial. Some of the disadvantages may out-do the advantages in this procedure. They include losing the case due to issues pertaining to evidence available (Cunningham & Taylor, 1984). Some of the most common acts that make people loose cases are the evidence factor and witnesses to stand for the true side of your story. 11. Does the grand jury still play a viable role in the criminal justice system? Are the criticisms of the grand jury valid? Why or why not? The grand jury does not play a viable role in the criminal justice system (Cunningham & Taylor, 1984). This is because they remain the least understood parts of the criminal justice system. The grand jury is also important in that it acts as an arm of investigation to the government. The role of the grand jury has really changed. It is said that the role of the jury is neither one-dimensional, nor well-defined (Gagel, 1995). However, grand juries have been helping the government in investigating crimes (Cunningham & Taylor, 1984). The criticism of juries can be stated simply, since it has been recognized presently. Therefore, these criticisms are valid. The grand jury was therefore accepted as a guarantee of individual liberty (Cunningham & Taylor, 1984). References Cunningham, W., & Taylor, T. (1984). Crime and protection in America: A study of private security and saw enforcement resources and relationships. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice Press. Feinman, J. (2010). Law 101: Everything you need to know about American law. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Gagel, L. (1995). Stealthy encroachments upon the fourth amendment: Constitutional constraints and their applicability to the long arm of Ohio's private security forces. Ohio: University of Cincinnati Press. Hougan, J. (1978). The haunting of America: The private use of secret agents. New York: Bantam Publishers. Scheb, J. (2011). Criminal procedure. Tennessee: Cengage Press. Read More