Analysis and Application: Legal Rights Afforded to the Accused By Kimberly Fleetwood CJ227: Criminal Procedure January 31, 2012 The police were not required to take any procedural steps even though John had made incriminating statements. If they had made the decision to question him on what he was saying, then they would have been obligated to read him his Miranda Rights. It would seem to me though that the police would not stop him to ask questions. The statements he was making would have surely been admissible in court. The only thing the officers needed to do was to take John’s statement down in their report.
The second amendment says “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (Bill of Rights). But how could we interpret this amendment? Does this mean that we have the right to have only one gun, or we have the right to have as many guns as we want? Every right has its limitations and this right is not the exception. The first amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” (Bill of Rights).
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Constitution, 1789).” b. The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. According to http://criminal.findlaw.com/, in most instances a police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or
Just as a law abiding American citizen seeking to purchase a gun might potentially be prosecuted if the Second Amendment is dropped from the Constitution. There is nothing in the constitution which states that Americans have the right to construct explosive devises, yet there is never an argument about the device itself. When a mass shooting occurs on U.S. soil, it is not the human committing the crime that is controversial, it is the device used to commit the crime. It is not the ethics of possessing a gun that is on trial, it is the person behind the
The problems caused by the Patriot Act are affecting ordinary civilian, especially legal immigrants. This law authorizes of indefinite detentions of immigrants; law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; allows the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order. Most of the Act only affects to the immigrants. Martin Luther King Jr. writes, “An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself” (par. 15).
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.
There is not a specific race or ethnicity that donates what a sex offender should be. There is no way to profile a person as a sex offender. Although we may have a mindset that may to depict an offender as a stranger or a physiologically deranged person this is not the case. In this paper we will examine who and what sex offenders are. We will also look at laws that are set in place to deter offenders from committing further sex crimes.
If the criminal is charged and tried for murder, but found innocent, then he or she cannot be charged with a reduced offense for the same crime, such as a serious assault. This is called double jeopardy. The Fifth Amendment promises that no one will be made to incriminate him or herself. When someone says they are pleading the fifth, it means they are refusing to answer the questions because he or she would incriminate himself or herself. No person has to incriminate themselves.
According to O’Connor (2009) “The USA Patriot Act, for example, violates the First Amendment’s free speech guarantees by barring those who have been subject to search orders from telling anyone about those orders, even in situations where no need for secrecy can be proven. It also authorizes the FBI to investigate citizens who choose to exercise their freedom of speech with no need to prove that any parts of their speech might be labeled illegal”. I think if someone says something that would cause the FBI to investigate it than there must be something behind it. I don’t think the FBI would intentionally waste their own time investigating an
There was nothing to say that legal advice during questioning was on offer and neither were there any limits on detention many miscarriages of justice arose from this point in time (Yesufu. 2013). According to Lord Scarman (1986) there is not enough supervision during the process of arrest and interrogation and the police are able to continue the process away from the gaze and commands of senior officers. This could further lead to miscarriages of justice as the police have immense discretion on what they perceive to be criminal activity, but we as a society trust the police to do their job and to use their discretion while questioning suspects. (Stephenson.