Cost and Benefits When determining the cost/benefit analysis to the exclusionary rule, one must take into consideration the outcome. This can be done by using critical thinking. Does the end justify the means? “The cost is that the exclusionary rule (cost to society) keeps evidence from the jury and makes it more difficult and more impossible to obtain a conviction (because of the loss of the evidence or the necessity of a retrial)” (Cost Benefit Analysis To The Exclusionary Rule, 2011). When officer conduct a search of a person’s house without following proper procedure the evidence that is obtained may not be admissible in court, the result is criminals go free.
Police Powers in the Public Services P1 – describe the difference between arrest with and without a warrant M1 – explain the requirements of lawful arrest and detention D1 – evaluate the powers of arrest, detention and search There is a legal right that allows UK citizens to arrest another person. This law is given under Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), 1984. In order to carry out a citizen’s arrest, there are certain rules that say when you can and cannot make an arrest. If you have suspicions that someone has committed a crime, these suspicions are not enough, no matter how strong they are. You could find yourself getting into trouble with the police if you carry out an arrest that is incorrect.
This is done to prevent a terrorist from using a student status as a cover-up to allow admittance to this country with the intention to commit acts of terrorism. There are many different surveillance methods that the government uses to spy on terrorist suspects, including email, financial records, and store receipts. But, one of the most common methods of surveillance that the government uses is roving wiretaps. This is tapping into phone calls. “The government says roving wiretaps are needed to deal with technologically sophisticated terrorists.” (Abramson & Godoy) But, one of the negatives of wiretapping is that the government might make an excuse for using it to monitor terrorism with the real intention to spy on foreign
Unit 17 P1 Unit 17 P1 Warrantless Arrests Generally, an officer may make an arrest in a public place without a warrant if probable cause exists. Probable cause in this scenario does not require the approval of a judge or magistrate, rather it may be derived from reliable tips, a routine vehicle stop, a "stop and frisk" or any additional evidence that an officer observes. Also, an officer may enter private property to make an arrest, but only if "exigent" or emergency circumstances exist, such as the safety of others or even the suspect himself. Warranted arrests To obtain a warrant, probable cause would have to be presented to a judge there would be evidence and/or testimony to support the warrant. An arrest without a warrant would be one that someone, usually an officer, caught someone in the act of committing the crime.
Exclusionary Rule is also grounded in Fourth Amendment and it is projected to guard people from prohibited searches and seizures. This Rule is also intended give a deterrent and remedy, which is short of criminal prosecution in reply to prosecutors and police who unlawfully collect substantiation in infringement of the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights bound to self-incrimination. This rule also assures the right to counsel (Carrie). The exclusionary rule has 3 elements: unlawful act did by an officer or a person who acts as an agent or police, secured evidence, and informal link between the criminal action and the substantiation secured. There are three exceptions to the exclusionary rule.
There are definitely pros and cons for individual(s) being able to have a concealed weapon but in this case I am for people being able to carry a concealed weapon. Criminals are less likely to target a person if they know that person is armed. Second I don’t feel the government can 100 guarantees the safety of all of its citizens. Third reason why is criminals are going to carry a concealed weapon legal or not. So why shouldn’t law abiding citizens be able to do the same and be able to protect themselves.
David Gray CJUS 200 Application Essay 2-15-14 Can you seize the marijuana plants at that time? If yes, what is your legal justification for doing so? If no, what legally prohibits you from doing so? No, as a police officer you would not be able to seize the marijuana plants at this time, by doing so you would be violating the rights of the citizens of the house that was entered due to the noise ordinance. Actually, the fourth amendment would actually keep you from doing so because it states that “every citizen right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property –whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses”.
Starting with the way in which the police present the suspect to the witness. Often, before any identification is made the witness will see the suspect wanted for questioning in handcuffs or in the back of a police car. The natural assumption is that the officers must have further incriminating evidence on this person, so he must be the perpetrator. What many experts say is the better practice is to use a double-blind procedure. The person showing the photos to the witness should not know the identity of the suspect.
(Hallam et al. 2005: 56) Some crimes however are not reported because the victim may be intimidated by the person responsible for the crime, or they may not have faith in the police to pursue the crime if they do report it. Other victims of crime may not report it as they feel that the crime is too minor, or that the police will think it is too minor to pursue. A large amount of sexual crime goes unreported because the victim is either too shocked, afraid or embarrassed. Police can use their discretion as to whether or not an incident is worth reporting, they have to decide if the incident is serious
This doesn’t include what the media does with celebrities and their private life. This more involves police matters and investigators searching for information. These people do this based on evidence that shows that a person must be investigated and their private life be made more known to them. This may be shown by actions or something a person implied that makes people suspect that they may do something to harm others. At the risk of putting others in harm’s way or jeopardizing other’s lives, police and investigators breech a person’s private matters and make sure that no one else will be harmed.