Specifically, the following rubric criteria must be addressed:
● Summarize the Fourth, Sixth, or Eighth Amendment.
● Explain a real-world example of where citizens’ rights could conflict with
the intention of criminal justice professionals to ensure safety.
● Describe three to five examples of how the rights given to citizens might
restrict the actions of professionals in the criminal justice system.
●
Miranda Chen
May 15, 2023
CJ-112
3-2 Assignment
I will examine the Fourth Amendment in today's assignment, which directly impacts
police practice. Keep in mind that the entire Fourth Amendment to the United States Bill of
Rights states: We acknowledge that people are equipped for be freed from abnormal chases
and seizures and that warrants should not be given other than in occasions of sensible
legitimization, joined by promises or certificates, and portraying thoroughly the spot to be looked
and the individual or thing to be seized." ( Cont. America, Fourth Correction). Individuals are
safeguarded from inconsistent government searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment to
the Constitution. However, the Fourth Amendment only provides protection against illegal
searches and seizures (US Courts, n.d.). There shall be no violation of the right of the people to
be protected from arbitrary searches and seizures of their homes, papers, and possessions, and
warrants shall not be issued except on the basis of probable cause, established by oath or
affirmation, and describing the location to be searched as well as the people or things to be
seized with reasonable specificity. Search for Law
In specific conditions, the fourth Amendment may not give security to a resident's rights,
for example, when a cop leads a traffic stop. If the officer has probable cause to believe that you
have violated a law that is not related to the traffic stop, such as if contraband is visible on the
passenger seat, the officer may search your entire vehicle. For example, assuming that the
police lead an inquiry and reveal proof that isn't pertinent to the reason for the hunt, the proof
might be viewed as permissible as proof against the person. This amendment must be
understood by anyone working in the legal profession, which includes not only courts and
attorneys but also the police and prisons. The police's ability to tell the difference between
unreasonable and reasonable behavior is one example. You were pulled over for speeding
during a traffic stop. The simple truth that you were pulled over for speeding doesn't warrant an
inquiry of your vehicle, or right? Or were you acting tense and going 25 mph over the speed limit
when you were stopped, as if you were trying to escape or something? If you were in violation of
the law by exceeding the speed limit by a few miles, you should have acted calmly and politely
when the policeman questioned you.
Personal searches by officers are also against the rules. Even if an individual appears
suspicious to the officer, they cannot be searched. They must be able to demonstrate that the
search was carried out in connection with a criminal act, such as when a person is fleeing a
robbery while holding a bag. One more occurrence of a court order being given is a warrant. In
the past, judges have been known to issue warrants with very weak justification. In a perfect
world, an official ought to have the option to convince an adjudicator that a warrant is vital by
giving adequate reasonable justification and any suitable proof against the suspect. Police can
sometimes carry out "reasonable" searches without a warrant, according to court rulings.
Inasmuch as it's sensible, the police can look through you on the off chance that they have a
valid justification to. That is the urgent variable that lays out whether something is sensible, and
courts experience experienced issues sorting it out.
