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.
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.
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 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.
If such identifications are excluded, police will begin to use only reliable identification procedures. A wealth of research has been done on why mis-identifications occur and what the best practices are to minimize the possibility of mis-identifications – why shouldn’t we insist that police use these best practices and insist that only reliable testimony be admitted at trial? "An in-court identification of an accused is inadmissible if a suggestive out-of-court identification procedure created a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." In considering whether error is harmless, a case's particular facts must be considered along with various factors including: "the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's
This illustrates the conflict between the freedom of individual privacy and the order from the government’s political values. But the government argues that it needs the power to track suspects as a way of protecting the order in society, keeping tabs on potential criminals. 2. Planned Parenthood v.
On the other hand, I think that our government has the right to do everything in it’s power to ensure our safety, including spying on those in countries who have threatened our own. If the NSA could have taken a closer look or had more information about Hazmi and Midhar’s plan to travel to the United States, their trip would have never been successful. The NSA needs to focus their attention more to the other countries instead of basically wasting all of their time with U.S. citizens, and maybe slips like letting terrorist into our homeland wouldn’t happen. They are getting their systems blown up with information that is useless to them from Americans. If they didn’t have to spend the time to sort through all of America’s “evidence,” then they would probably be able to seek out and confirm the terroristic threats and evidence coming from outside of the
USA Patriot Act of 2001 As a result of September 11th and the 2001 anthrax attacks, congress passed the USA Patriot act. It was developed as an effort to protect and prevent the society from in future foreign or domestic terrorist. Once the act was passed and put into place, people immediate noticed some possible limitations to the act. The USA Patriot act has some aspects that protect the people very well, while other aspects create more risk for the society. The USA Patriot act is a legislation passed by congress for stronger security controls ("USA patriot act," 2001).
It protects the guilty rather than the victims. This rule basically states that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in a criminal trial. The basis of this rule is supposed to prevent the police and other sections of the government from illegally searching or violating our homes and our privacy. When all it really does is prevents the truth from surfacing and help criminals go free. After researching both sides of this issue, in no way am I stating that I don’t understand the determination of the opposing side to keep this rule.
Other officers will cover up these actions when filing reports. Police officers do not treat suspects with dignity in many situations. When officers witness the actions of others, they do not report these cases to superiors. The ethical dilemmas that these conflicts can cause include the public not trusting the police force patrolling their communities. The citizens feel they are guilty until proven innocent.