2500

Giodagod74

2500SAFEASSIGNWENDY.docx

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >2500

SafeAssign Logo

2022_SPRING_CJ2500EOL51 - BASICS OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION - 51

Final Paper

Kejuan Hemphill

on Mon, Mar 07 2022, 8:42 PM

60% highest match

Submission ID: 7e1d9197-7a71-4208-8e6c-169144807815

Attachments (1)

· CJ 2500 MOD 6 PAPER.docx 60%

Word Count: 1,328

Attachment ID: 5283790954

CJ 2500 MOD 6 PAPER.docx

1 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE

As the issue of searches and seizures has raised some important questions regarding privacy and citizen’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, it is crucial to review its characteristics. It was found that reasonableness of privacy expectations is the focal point that determines whether searches and seizures can be performed.

The topic of searches and seizures has been one of the most debated due to the inconsistencies in the expectations of privacy. Due to such inconsistencies, it is important to study the topic in greater detail with an objective to identify in which cases searches and seizures are reasonable and in which cases they are not.

One of the most fundamental rights American citizens possess is the ability not to have illegal searches and seizures, as laid out in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Under the Amendment, a citizen is secure in his or her right to property against unreasonable seizures and searches (Brady, 2016). The “unreasonable” component of the definition is the most important in this context since there may be reasonable searches and seizures (depending on whether a potential offender had a right to expect privacy) (Find Law, 2017).

The expectation of privacy is not obsolete, rather, it is determined by reasonableness (Kenneally, 2016); individual’s effort to exclude the access of others from property strongly indicates one’s expectation of privacy. However, judges usually assess the reasonableness of one’s expectation of privacy on the basis of their own experiences, which causes inconsistencies in how citizens perceive privacy versus how the law is treating them (Fogel, 2014).

The primary issue regarding searches and seizures is associated with an individual’s reasonable expectations of privacy that are being determined depending on the circumstances. When it comes to the reasonableness of such expectations, an individual whose vehicle was stopped by a police officer for a traffic violation cannot reasonably expect privacy since a breach took place. If the officer has some suspicions and conducts a search, the court will deem this search and possible seizures as reasonable.

On the other hand, if the police conduct an unwarranted search of an individual’s house without prior warning or explanation, such an event will be considered unreasonable. Therefore, there is a line between reasonable and unreasonable searches and seizures that depend on whether an individual has a right to expect privacy.

The expectation of privacy is a concept that goes hand-in-hand with searches and seizures conducted by the representatives of the law enforcement. Searches and seizures are considered reasonable in those cases when citizens do not have reasonable expectations of privacy as explained in the examples with houses and automobiles. To avoid misunderstandings, it is recommended to define the concept of reasonableness in greater detail since the inconsistencies in how courts and citizens interpret it.

1 THE INQUIRY, SEIZURE, PAUSE AND SEARCH, WARRANT, REASONABLE PROTECTION, AND THE EXCLUSIONARY STANDARD ARE THE FUNDAMENTAL PIECES OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. 2 THE COURTS ARE ANSWERABLE FOR PICKING THE THINGS THAT FALL UNDER PURSUIT AND SEIZURE IN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT SO THE INDIVIDUAL CAN ESTEEM THE SECURITY OF THE CORRECTION (SWANSON, CHAMELIN, TERRITO, AND TAYLOR, 2006). 1 IN ANY CASE, AND IF, BY ANY OPPORTUNITY, THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT THE ISSUES PRESENT BEFORE IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THE SINGULAR WILL BE INTRODUCED TO LOOK AND SEIZURE. According to the Fourth Amendment, an encroachment is said to have occurred on the off chance that an expert related with a police association encroaches on an individual's astute longing for security. 2 IN A LITTLE WHILE, SEARCHES AND SEARCHES CAN BE TRYING TO EXECUTE WHILE PERFORMING BUTT-DRIVEN OR GENITAL APPRAISALS. LIKEWISE, ELECTRONIC DISCERNMENT AND A CANINE SNIFF INCLUDE SENSIBLE INQUIRIES UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IF AND WHEN THEY ARE KEPT UP WITH BY A RELIABLE CLARIFICATION AND ARE EXECUTED IN A COMMON WAY (KIM, 2017).

A seizure can happen in two particular habits. 2 IT CAN EITHER BE THE CAPTURE OF A PROPERTY OR AN INDIVIDUAL. Capture of property is said to occur in the event that an individual's possessory excitement for property has been interrupted with; an individual is supposed to be exploited assuming their big chance has been encroached by the specialists (Kim, 2017). 1 TO LEGALLY HOLD ONTO AN INDIVIDUAL OR PROPERTY, THE INDIVIDUAL IN POWER OF THE LAW OUGHT TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL WARRANTS. 2 REGARDLESS, A COP CAN MAKE WARRANTLESS GETS ASSUMING AN AUTHORITY HAS A TRUSTWORTHY CONVICTION THAT A SUSPECT HAS SUBMITTED OR IS A RISK TO PEOPLE WHEN EVERYTHING IS SAID IN DONE (HINKLE, 2015; Kim, 2017).

Pause and search look through comprises of one more part of the Fourth Amendment. 1 AS DEMONSTRATED, A WARRANT AND REASONABLE THINKING ARE DIFFERENT SECTIONS IN THE CHANGE, AND THEY ANTICIPATE CRITICAL MOVEMENT IN SEARCH AND SEIZURE, AS TALKED ABOUT ABOVE. 2 ONE MORE COMPONENT OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE IS THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE, WHICH IS A STANDARD LAID OUT TO GUARANTEE THAT COPS SUBMIT TO THE NECESSITIES OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT CONCERNING SEARCH AND SEIZURE. THE STANDARD CONVEYS THAT ON THE OFF CHANCE THAT ANY APPROVAL IS ACQUIRED UNLAWFULLY OR DOESN'T KEEP UP THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, IT IS UNACCEPTABLE OR CAN'T BE UTILIZED IN A COURT (TAYLOR, FRITSCH, AND LIEDERBACH, 2014). 1 FOR EXAMPLE, IN MAP V. OHIO, THE SUPREME COURT REASONED THAT THE DECISION IN WOLF V. 2 COLORADO WAS BROKEN SINCE THE COURT GAVE UP THAT IT GOT PROOF UNLAWFULLY. Pause and search, edges and inspirations driving the region, bars with sensible and bona fide clarification, and where it is shown that there could be no other viable procedures material are rejections of the Fourth Amendment (Swanson et al., 2006).

The police ought not sit around idly with a warrant to utilize robots to examine the porch nor meddle with a warrant to follow one's exercises for a couple of days. With every one of the new headways, police can utilize gadgets, for example, stingrays to screen an objective region or property (Feeney, 2017). 1 A STINGRAY COMMUNICATES A SIGN THAT IS MAINTAINED AS SUCH POWER CLOSE BY TELEPHONES TO ASSOCIATE WITH IT. No matter what the way that this improvement can be utilized for OK and assist with finding a hazardous person. 1 MOREOVER, SIMILARLY AS THIS ISN'T SUFFICIENT, ASSUMING THE ASSOCIATION WERE TO CHOOSE TO INTRODUCE GPS TRACKERS IN INDIVIDUALS' (PCS) OR VEHICLES AND USE THEM TO LOOK OUT FOR ITS LOCAL PEOPLE, IT WOULDN'T BREAK THE FOURTH AMENDMENT (FEENEY, 2017). 2 AS MUCH AS THE RULES UTILIZED IN DISENTANGLING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT HAVE ADVANCED, IT IS PERCEIVED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN GIGANTIC UPGRADES IN THE UTILIZATION OF EXCLUSIONARY RULE, MIRANDA ADMONISHING, AND WARRANTS. In any case, more is as yet required, notwithstanding the way in which everything should be finished. Current and new components should be adjusted to the changes. ( Brady, 2016).

References

Brady, M. (2016). 3 THE LOST “EFFECTS” OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: 4 GIVING PERSONAL PROPERTY DUE PROTECTION. The Yale Law Journal, 125(4), 796-1149.

Find Law. (2017). 2 SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAW. Web.

Fogel, J. (2014). From the bench: 3 A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. Litigation Journal, 40(4), 1-5.

Kenneally, E. (2016). Reasonable expectations of privacy indicators. Web.

Feeney, M. (2017). 2 HOW THE FOURTH AMENDMENT CAN KEEP UP WITH MODERN SURVEILLANCE. THE WEEKLY STANDARD. RETRIEVED FROM HTTPS://WWW.WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM/WEEKLY-STANDARD/HOW-THE-FOURTH-AMENDMENT-CAN-KEEP-UP-WITH-MODERN-SURVEILLANCE

Hinkle, R. K. (2015). 2 LEGAL CONSTRAINT IN THE US COURTS OF APPEALS. THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, 77(3), 721-735.

Kerr, O. S. (2013). 2 THE CURIOUS HISTORY OF FOURTH AMENDMENT SEARCHES. THE SUPREME COURT REVIEW, 2012(1), 67-97.

Kim, J. (2017). Fourth Amendment. 2 LEGITIMATE INFORMATION INSTITUTE. RECOVERED FROM HTTPS://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/WEX/FOURTH_AMENDMENT LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE. (n.d.). U. S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment. 2 RETRIEVED FROM HTTPS://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/CONSTITUTION/FOURTH_AMENDMENT SWANSON, C., CHAMELIN, C., TERRITO, L., AND TAYLOR, R. (2006). Criminal investigation. 2 MCGRAW-HILL HIGHER EDUCATION.

Taylor, R. 2 W., FRITSCH, E. J., & LIEDERBACH, J. (2014). 2 DIGITAL CRIME AND DIGITAL TERRORISM. PRENTICE HALL PRESS.

Citations (4/4)

1. 1Another student's paper

2. 2Another student's paper

3. 3https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?curid=572687

4. 4https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-lost-effects-of-the-fourth-amendment

Matched Text

Suspected Entry: 100% match