The Law Enforcement Supreme Court Cases paper PDF

Preview

Summary

Download The Law Enforcement Supreme Court Cases paper PDF

Description

1

The Law Enforcement Supreme Court Cases paper Buhlebothando Scott Introduction to Criminal Justice CRJ 201 Doctor Sean Grier February 22, 2021

2

Miranda v. Arizona As stated by (Miranda v. Arizona., n.d.), On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was placed under arrest while he was in his house and brought to the police station. At the police station, he was questioned about a rape and a kidnapping case. He was interrogated for two hours and he gave police a written confession of the incident. During his trial, he admitted that the written confession was valid. However, his attorney objected to the written confession because Miranda had not been advised by the police that he had a right to have an attorney present during his interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty of committing the crime that he confessed to. The constitutional amendment that relied upon the court decisions was the Fifth Amendment’s requirement of law officials to advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during the interrogations while in custody. The Supreme court's pinions on this case were that the Fifth Amendments' rights were not violated since it was Miranda’s responsibility to request counsel. The Supreme Court’s ruling did not provide am appropriate protections for the defendants since the defendant was not advised of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during his interrogation or while in custody. The Supreme Court decision created implications about law enforcement and its investigations. According to (Westlaw, nd), Miranda v. Arizona ruling, caused concern about police interrogation practices in hopes that it will reduce the risk of police coercion during the interrogation. Although he committed this crime, his Fifth Amendment Constitutional right (as stated) was violated, and the Supreme Court used his confession to find him guilty. Weeks v. United States As stated by (Weeks v. United States, n.d.), the police entered the home of Fremont Weeks without a search warrant, while he was at work. They entered the home illegally, with a key

3

obtained through his neighbor illegally. Upon entering his residence, they seized his books, letters, money, papers, notes, stock, certificates, insurance policies, deeds, abstracts, muniments of title, bonds, candies, clothes, and papers which were used to convict him of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. Week was later arrested and charged with the alleged sale of lottery tickets. The constitutional amendment that relied upon the court decision was the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and confiscations, and it requires that a search warrant has to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The Supreme Court’s ruling provides appropriate protections for defendants since the Constitution violation was acknowledged and corrected by overturning the case. The implication of the decision for law enforcement and its investigation was not appropriate since they failed to abide by the Constitution of the United States (Weeks v. United States, n.d.). Terry v. Ohio As stated by (Terry v. Ohio, n.d) John Terry and a codefendant, Richard Chilton, were arrested by a Cleveland Police Detective Martin McFadden. Detective McFadden states while he was patrolling, he observed Terry, along with his codefendants behaving suspiciously. As a seasoned Detective, McFadden observed the defendants (three men) who didn’t look right, they were pacing back and forth, while observing a store and often pausing to conversate. Through his years of policing, his observation made him feel as if the defendants were contemplating daylight robbery. He approached the three men, questioned them, and began to conduct a frisk search. During the search he found two of the men to be in possession of firearms. He arrested the men, and they were transported to the police station, charged with possession of firearms, and sentenced. Terry petitioned with the Supreme Court that his Constitutional rights were violated. The Constitutional Amendment relied upon the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits

4

unreasonable searches and confiscations, and it requires that a search warrant has to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The Supreme Court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonable person would have believed that Terry was armed, posed threat to the officer’s safety during his investigation of his suspicious behavior. The Court found that the searches commenced were limited in scope and for the safety protection and safety of the officer. The Supreme Court’s ruling did not provide appropriate protections for the defendants, because it violated their rights, which prohibited unreasonable searches, but it did prevent what could have been a dangerous situation. The implications of the decisions for law enforcement in its investigations, according to (Westlaw, nd), the defendant was entitled to the protection of the Fourth Amendment as he walked down the city street.

5

References: Miranda v. Arizona. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved February 22, 2021, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759

(n.d.). Retrieved February 22, 2021, from https://1-next-westlaw-com.proxylibrary.ashford.edu/Document/I35dcaa22e50211e986e7fa9b57279b6c/View/FullText.html? listSource=Search&navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation %2Fi0ad7403600000177d1b125309129baa2%3FpcidPrev %3Dfca727996af64d35a48846d787a7985c%26Nav%3DANALYTICAL%26fragmentIdentifier %3DI35dcaa22e50211e986e7fa9b57279b6c%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex %3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType %3DRecommendedDocumentItem&list=CASE&rank=0&listPageSource=65918a331bb780274a c3dddf796dba0b&originationContext=docHeader&contextData=%28sc.Recommended %29&transitionType=Document&isSnapSnippet=True&needToInjectTerms=False&docSource= 12bd87ae3763421dbe850f0f4cd4ba01 Weeks v. United States. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved February 22, 2021, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/232us383 Terry v. Ohio. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved February 23, 2021, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67 (n.d.). Retrieved February 22, 2021, from https://1-next-westlaw-com.proxylibrary.ashford.edu/Document/I35dcaa22e50211e986e7fa9b57279b6c/View/FullText.html? listSource=Search&navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation %2Fi0ad7403600000177d1b125309129baa2%3FpcidPrev %3Dfca727996af64d35a48846d787a7985c%26Nav%3DANALYTICAL%26fragmentIdentifier %3DI35dcaa22e50211e986e7fa9b57279b6c%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex %3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType %3DRecommendedDocumentItem&list=CASE&rank=0&listPageSource=65918a331bb780274a c3dddf796dba0b&originationContext=docHeader&contextData=%28sc.Recommended %29&transitionType=Document&isSnapSnippet=True&needToInjectTerms=False&docSource= 12bd87ae3763421dbe850f0f4cd4ba01

6...