Response Paper Number One: Criminal Procedure in Regards to Search and Seizure [YOUR NAME HERE] [YOUR UNIVERSITY HERE] Abstract The Fourth Amendment, as well as state constitutions, provides protections against citizens from warrantless search and seizures by those in law enforcement…
Through the study of the differences between two cases that set precedent for the decision of State v. Randolph (2002) in Tennessee, including California v. Hodari D. (1991) and United States v. Mendenhall (1980), these circumstances will be addressed. Also discussed within this paper will be how these decisions impact both law enforcement officers in trying to carry out the duties of their jobs, and how those same decisions can affect those with mental health conditions when faced with search and seizure circumstances. Response Paper Number One: Criminal Procedure in Regards to Search and Seizure Differences in the Decisions Between California v. Hodari D (1991) and United States v. Menedenhall (1980) In the case of State v. Randolph (2002), as reviewed in the Memphis Law Review by Brent A. Heilig, the main issue to be dealt with is, in broad terms, the search and seizure of citizens. Though this practice, according to Mr. Heilig, is supported by Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee State Constitution, as well as the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, it is frequently questioned and cited throughout the case. For purposes of precedent, as with most legal cases, two previously decided cases were given for comparison, United States v. Mendenhall (1980) and California v. Hodari D. (1991). ...
Mendenhall (1980), the Supreme Court concluded that if a person believed they were free to leave at any time, they were not seized. This is fairly straightforward. If a person believes that they are not free to leave an area before, during, or after being detained by law enforcement, they have been seized. If they believe that they are free to leave, they are not. However, in the case of California v. Hodari D. (1991), the Supreme Court ruled that a person was not considered “seized” unless some form of physical restraint was directed at an individual by an officer, or the individual has yielded to some form of authority shown, thus introducing a subjective element. Even the wording of the California v. Hodari D. (1991) decision is subjective; while a “form of physical restraint” can be interpreted fairly easily, as law enforcement officers have such means at their disposal, the term “show of authority” cannot. It is not defined, exactly, what a show of authority is, whether it is calling for a suspect to halt, activating flashing lights on a patrol car, or simply showing some form of identification as a law enforcement officer. Regardless, the main point is that if they do not submit, they are not considered seized. The second main difference highlighted between the two decisions is that instead of moving in a broader direction as far as seizure parameters were concerned, California v. Hodari D. (1991) moves in the other direction completely. As per United States v. Mendenhall (1980), all that is required to define a seizure is the belief by a person that they are not free to go. This defines a broach scope of seizure, and sets a precedent for future cases that can easily be applied. By its very nature, the phrase “not free to leave” can ...
Cite this document
(“Criminal Procedure in Regards to Search and Seizure Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/law/57315-criminal-procedure-state-v-randolph-the-tennessee
(Criminal Procedure in Regards to Search and Seizure Essay)
“Criminal Procedure in Regards to Search and Seizure Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/law/57315-criminal-procedure-state-v-randolph-the-tennessee.
Over the years man has become more and more free and was able to accumulate rights and capabilities based on one’s free will but must never cross over another man’s rights and capabilities. Freedom has its price as the famous quote implies truly, because one cannot be free without complying with the rules and regulations set upon by the norms and the laws of man.
The persons upon whom search and seizure are committed are selected on grounds of reasonable suspicion. In most cases, the search operation does not lead to seizure of goods/property belonging to the suspected person. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers reasoned that “search and seizure is a necessary exercise in the ongoing pursuit of criminals.
Taken in a singular context, the Miranda warning is an easy to understand and straightforward statement. However, when dealing with persons of diminished mental capacity, these statements can be drastically reinterpreted to have different meanings than what were intended, which in turn could have dire consequences for both the accused and any case that the police may have against them.
Regarding this, the proponent tries to compare and contrast the role of due process and crime control models on shaping criminal procedure policy. Thus, the analysis includes a review and assessment of the Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights to the states and their potential impacts on the criminal justice system as applied to due process and crime control models.
Hence, with the kind of role that criminal justice policy can not be able to perform its duties exhaustively since managing all the criminal justice is such a crucial role to play. Many people fail to understand why the criminal justice can not cater for matters that are related to security.
This was in new agreement after the Supreme Court Case Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980): which "Struck a portion of Alabama's death penalty law that blocked juries from convicting defendants of an included lesser offense rather than the capital crime itself; juries were required to either convict a defendant of the capital crime or to acquit him."( http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/history.html) In was in the passing of previous laws regarding the death penalty that Alabama safeguards in all of its regulations:
Certain countries, such as the United States and Canada, have provisions in their constitutions that provide the public with the right against "unreasonable" search and seizure" (Search and Seizure, 2007). Detaining on the other hand keeping a prison in custody or to confine him temporarily.
In this regard, the author is identified to be adherence to textaulism2;3. Contextually, the essay majorly focuses towards understanding the patterns of textualisation as described by ’Antonin Scalia’.