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.
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. (Woodfin, 2009) In addition, there are already several exceptions to requiring a warrant, such as “stop-and-frisk”, airport and school searches, voluntary searches, and emergency situations (Scheb, 2008) While these arguments supported the continued use of the exclusionary rule, there are also many argue against its value to our criminal justice system. One of the most
This means if a person is arrested without a warrant or without probable cause and incriminating evidence is discovered after the arrest, that evidence cannot be used against the arrestee. Automobile Exception: The United States Supreme Court has stated individuals have a reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles and because vehicles are “readily mobile” it is not practical to require police to obtain a search warrant for a car. If the police have reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime has been committed, they can initiate a traffic stop. Reasonable suspicion can be nothing more than the driver’s failure to use a turn signal when changing lanes or not wearing a seat belt. If the initial traffic stop is valid, and the police develop additional
According to Larry Greenemeier, a recent court case, Carpenter V. United States "specifically pits the privacy of information that wireless devices share with their service providers-the towers or " cell sites" devices connect to, the phone numbers they call and answer, and the time and length of those calls-against law enforcement's authority to retrieve that data without a warrant." However, the FBI issued court orders under the 1986 SCA in order to compel carriers to turn that information over to the FBI. This would be acceptable despite the fact that a warrant requires more reasoning to receive. If they felt strongly enough that they had reason to obtain certain information, they should have to convince a judge to see the situation from the same point of view. “ Without a warrant, but with the SCA court order in hand-the FBI compelled MetroPCS to provide about four months of location records for a smartphone owned by suspect Timothy Ivory Carpenter.” Based off of the information the authorities had previously, it would not have been hard to convince a judge to issue them a warrant.
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. Basically one wrong moved can make us lose a suspect of a horrible crime if we are not careful. Law enforcement just need to be cautious so they are doing their jobs correct, and setting a person free will get them into trouble (cjlf.org, 2011). When we are identifying the exclusionary rule it is a great rule to have so police have to stop and think. Police have to think before they search because it could cost them a lot if they just do what they want.
Exposure can cause a series of consequences not only for those in the group but also others that this group has great dealing with. What does the threat or exercise of criminal punishment typically have upon journalists? How might punishment conflict with First Amendment protections of freedoms of speech and press? * Zero to none because they frequently express their rights of freedom of speech and free press. So they use the constitution in many situations to protect the information they release to the public.
Imagine a society where the rights of individuals are not protected. A law enforcement agency can search a person’s telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records. If they suspect any terrorism-related acts, they can detain anyone indefinitely. This is Patriot Act. Even though advocates claim that the Patriot Act helps to protect the national security, the Patriot Act is unjust.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is typically cited to protect a defendant against self-incrimination and uphold an individual’s right to due process. Defendant’s are often protected from “taking the stand” in a criminal proceeding against them. The due process clause is often cited in an effort to prevent the surrender of self-incriminating evidence. However, with the advent of widespread encryption and the constant fight against illicit content stored on digital media, courts have been forced to reexamine the implications of the Fifth Amendment. The increase in computer use and digital communications has created a unique problem for the legal system in its effort to interpret the Fifth Amendment.
It states that a warrant must be issues with significant probable cause in order for the police to come into dwellings and carry out a search. This Amendment protects defendants from having evidence held against them that was improperly seized. This also makes police
However, any restriction placed upon civil liberties must be proportionate to the threat. If there are disproportionate measures put in place, it may be questioned as to whether, they can be legally sanctioned. One of the most fundamental rights of major concern is that of ”freedom of speech.” This right, following the atrocity of 9/11 is perhaps used more restrictively. A person may fear that their speech may lead to investigation if it is seen to be threatening or anti-governmental in its nature, as it may be classed as being associated with the idea of a terrorist. Arguably, under the Terrorism Act it was made possible for the police to stop and search persons if there was belief that they were likely to be involved in some sort of terrorist activities.