can you please recheck these make and corrections,
Constitutional Issues and Criminal Investigations
There are several constitutional issues that impact criminal investigations.
Two of these are the exclusionary rule and Miranda warnings. Analyze one
of these two statements and address the corresponding questions.
The exclusionary rule is necessary to ensure that
people’s rights are protected against unreasonable search and seizure and
to make sure that criminal investigations are ethical.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why or
why not? What is the exclusionary rule and how is it
used? How does it help or hinder criminal investigations?
“Good Faith a reasonable,
honest belief lacking malice or ill-intent and without intention to defraud” (The Exclusionary Rule Main Page, 2007, p.1).If Law Enforcement violates a persons Fourth Amendment
Rights if they make a mistake, then whatever evidence they had against you
might be admissible. If Law Enforcement finds evidence while conducting a
illegal search then that evidence is probably inadmissible in a court of law.
Introduced in Congress
by James Madison in 1789, the Fourth Amendment to The Constitution of the
United States, and also a part of the
Bill of Rights states:
"The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things
to be seized" (The Exclusionary Rule Main Page,
2007).
Our Constitution of the United States balances interest, safety, and interest in a
persons privacy by consenting to government invasion, but it needs to be done
in a reasonable manner, Probable cause sometimes implies a showing of evidence
and also possession of a valid warrant.
I agree with the statement that it is necessary to ensure that there
must be protection of people’s rights against unreasonable search and seizure
together with ensuring there is ethical criminal investigation. It is evident
that the suspects hold the rights in accordance to The Fourth Amendment
(Maclin, 2013). Law Enforcement personnel may at times act beyond their
responsibility due to the nature of crime and may include unreasonable evidence
during a trial. Mapp v. Ohio is a good example of exclusionary rule. Exclusionary
rule is a principle based on federal constitution law that seek to ensure that
the law enforcement officers do not present illegally seized evidence and that
violates the rights of the defendant. It rules against unreasonable searches,
seizures, and rules that such evident cannot be useful prosecution. It is a
court rule seeking to rule against illegally acquiring evidence the wish and
the rights of the defendant. Despite evidence being relevant, the mode of
collecting may rule it out during the trial.
Miranda warnings are not necessary because they are not
actually required by the Constitution and they do little to protect
criminal suspects.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why or
why not?
What are the Miranda warnings and what is the case law
for using them? How are they used? How does it help or hinder criminal
investigations?
I agree
with the statement that Miranda warnings are not necessary by reasoning that
they are not necessary and not in the constitution and they do little to
protect criminal suspects.
I do believe that a person has his own rights even after arrest and it
is not necessary mean that what he or she says can incriminate him or her
(Goldstein and Goldstein, 2010). The prosecutors do not have the capacity to
use the oral words said by the suspects to incriminate him or her. There are
exceptions offered to the suspects over the Miranda rule. It is not a must read
the rules to the suspect since the evidence might not be admissible and does
not mean that the law enforcement officer compelled the suspect to offer
certain statements.
References
Goldstein,
A. M., & Goldstein, N. E. S. (2010). Evaluating capacity to waive
Miranda rights. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Maclin,
T. (2013). The Supreme Court and the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Exclusionary
Rule Main Page - National Paralegal College. (2007). Retrieved from
nationalparalegal.edu/conLawCrimProc.../ExclusionaryRule.asp