Handling evidence properly is one of the most crucial points of any investigation. Without even intentionally doing so, mishandling of evidence could mean a case thrown out of court. Some types of mishandling of evidence would be planting of evidence, removing evidence, not following the chain of custody and unlawfully obtaining evidence. Rape cases should involve specially trained individuals, if an untrained investigator was to handle a rape case the way a homicide case was handled even more issues can arise. Reducing Ethical Considerations From arrival at a crime scene the investigator must follow only the facts and remove any emotion from considerations.
By making this exclusionary rule, the court has to take the incentive away so police cannot take a person’s constitutional right’s away. Law enforcement cannot just bust down a person door just because police cannot even search a person car without a search warrant. There is a purpose to this rule and that is to make law enforcement enforce their own rules. The main purpose is to deter police or discourage police from doing illegal searched. The purpose also is if law enforcement was to take the evidence it would not be used in the court of law unless issue or that person can be set free of all charges.
Police officer need a warrant to search a person, no matter who he is. I support the first opinion, I believe the police officers are protector of people rights, but sometimes they need to invade certain person’s own right to protect the whole society. Police officer can search without warrant in three cases, “The first, called the “plain view doctrine,” refers to situations in which the police, during the course of legal police business, see something of interest in plain view, for example, if a police officer on duty on the street, and see someone sitting in the car and use illegal drug, he can seize the evidence without the warrant. Second, the police can also legally conduct a warrantless search if you give permission for them to do so. Finally, a police officer can conduct a “search incident to arrest” without a warrant.
Emily Burleson 1/15/2013 Mr. Zimmer CJ227 Police Encounters with Suspects and Evidence Did Officer Smith have a reasonable suspicion to make the initial traffic stop? One of the more dangerous jobs an officer has is traffic stops. “The officer never knows what will happen during that stop and must stay alert so nothing can happen to the officer (Anti Essays)”. Officer Smith had reasonable suspicion to pull the car over for a broken taillight, which is a traffic violation, and can receive a “fix-it” ticket or a “correctable violations” ticket. Plus the car she pulled over matched the description of a vehicle that killed a fellow officer.
The Criminal Justice System locks up innocent people and yet innocent people are still getting killed. Eyewitness misidentification has proven to be the leading cause for wrongful convictions, according to The Innocence Project. The Innocence Project was founded in 1992, for the purpose of assisting prisoners to be proven innocent through DNA evidence. To date, 300 people in the United States have been exonerated through DNA testing. The Innocence Project's attorneys and Cardozo clinic students have assisted in the majority of these cases.
In line with this, the investigative department requests warrants to search for evidence, but they must be approved by the judicial branch. (Lynch, 1998) Most defenses that invoke the exclusionary rule are based on the lack of or improper application of search warrants. Those that support the continued use of the exclusionary rule argue that there must be this line between the police officers that are often emotionally involved in a case, and an impartial third party that can objectively review the evidence. Without this safeguard, citizens would have little protection from overzealous police officers who could search their homes and persons with almost anything serving as probable cause in their opinion. The fact that officers know that illegally obtained (but true) evidence will quite possibly be thrown out, and therefore dangerous criminals will be freed, will encourage them to follow the proper procedures.
As you can see by the definition, there are big differences between interview and interrogation. The main difference is that interview is asking the witnesses of the crime and interrogation is questioning the ones that are said to have committed the crime. 2. Identify the rule when Miranda warnings are required. “The Miranda rule is to be conducted when the suspect is in custody and the officer is about to conduct the interrogation.” (Hess Orthmann & Hess, 2013).
2d 54 (1975) the United States Supreme Court mandated that persons arrested without a warrant and held by law enforcement must be given a preliminary hearing to determine if there is ‘probable cause.’ Probable cause means that there is reasonable ground exists by the arresting officer who believes in the facts, and a preliminary hearing or preliminary examination would decide whether a prudent person would believe that the suspect committed the offense in light of the facts. The Role of the Grand Jury There are some states that use a grand jury to determine if their case is strong enough to issue an indictment. However some people will request a preliminary hearing because it will allow them to hear the evidence that is against them, or the basis of the prosecutor’s case. Others will request a preliminary hearing to request a dismissal of the case, but in some cases there is typically a second appearance called a preliminary hearing. A preliminary hearing is also considered a preliminary examination; rule five (c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and state rules of criminal procedure follow the same process.
Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing. While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated When police use suggestive procedures to obtain an identification, that should per-se be a reason to exclude the identification. If such identifications are excluded, police will begin to use only reliable identification procedures.
Police barricades and guards can help with securing the scene as well this is a good way to monitor the area to make sure no unwanted people get through and cause loss of evidence. This will include officers that are not involved in the case, neighbors, family of victim. Securing the crime scene must be done in a timely manner and all persons entering the scene should be recorded and times of the entry should be taken as well. Before anyone can enter the scene the responding officer must first establish a walk way to enter to ensure that no evidence is being touched and out of the way before walking into the scene, this will include investigators or medical examiners that need to get to any victims that may be injured. Once the crime scene has been blocked off and secured the investigators will process the area.