Crystal Morgan
Your Possible Future Employee
Supreme Court Reviews
Constitutional Criminal Justice
Sample Work
Project | 01 Criminal Justice Effectiveness
The U.S. criminal justice system is in a constant balancing act between the rights of individuals and the need to protect citizens from harm. Most individual rights are found in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.
Review these individual rights and provide your opinion on whether or not the effectiveness of the criminal justice system is hindered by individual liberties.
The effectiveness of our criminal justice system hinges on a system of checks and balances. A major check on the balance of power afforded those acting under the color of their office within the criminal justice system consists of the individual liberties delineated in the Bill of Rights.
The Fourth Amendment is a prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures. This amendment simply states that a search conducted without a warrant is only permitted and admissible if there is probable cause. Exceptions to this requirement get very complicated and are completely dependent on the circumstances at that moment in time, usually when there is imminent danger of destruction of relevant evidence, plausible reason that officers or other citizens could be placed in immediate danger, when evidence of a crime is obvious, or even when an individual waives their right. Every exception has been clearly defined through decades of Supreme Court rulings when challenges to violations of Fourth Amendment rights have been heard. However, in cases of a warrantless search, seizure, or arrest probable cause must still be shown after the fact and will be required prior to prosecuting a defendant. Probable cause can be established through a witness to the crime, a reliable informant, a coconspirator, or even a victim.
The Fifth Amendment is best understood when associated with the right to remain silent. It originates in 17th century England when Puritans were often tortured and coerced into confessing their religious affiliation; if they remained silent it was assumed they were guilty under the notion that those with nothing to hide expose everything. The founders of this country wanted to prevent that from ever happening here, thus the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment “gives an accused person a constitutional privilege against self-incrimination…This constitutional right to remain silent and to not be forced to testify against oneself is a right that attaches throughout any stage of a criminal proceeding” (Judge Diane, 1998). During investigatory stages of a crime, a citizen of this country has the right to refuse to answer police questions or to remain completely silent. At the trial stage of criminal proceedings, this privilege means that no judge, prosecutor, attorney, or other government official can force the defendant to take the stand against their will and jurors cannot use this refusal against them during deliberation. Miranda rights were composed to protect this right.
The seven discrete personal liberties afforded by the Sixth Amendment, combined with the Fifth Amendment, are vital components to ensuring a fair and honest trial for the defendant in a criminal case. “The presumption of innocence is inextricably linked to fairness in criminal due process… [As it is applied in connection with] the standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” (Bassiouni, 1993). The Fifth and Sixth Amendments are the base guidelines for all judiciary proceedings in criminal cases.
The Eighth Amendment guarantees the right to not only be free from cruel and unusual punishment but also to be free from other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatments. In fact, it was violations of the right to be free from inhuman treatment that forced the closure of several prisons in California recently. While most people consider the Eighth Amendment to be applicable to only corrections or the judiciary branch, it also applies to law enforcement officers in the respect that that they are the only government officials who have the legal authority to detain and use physical force against citizens. Given the large amount of discretion these officers are provided in most cases they must take great care to only detain citizens when necessary as well as never to use more force than necessary in any given situation
If the question is whether the Bill of Rights, alone, hinders the effectiveness of the criminal justice system then I would say they do. This may seem contradictory to the disagreement I would make if the question included all Constitutional Amendments along with exceptions, provisions, and consequences that have changed the criminal justice system to date but it is not. The problem with the Bill of Rights, alone, is that it made many promises regarding the rights guaranteed to citizens of this country but no punishment for violating these rights. It also failed to apply these rights to the states in efforts to maintain an equal balance of power within the country until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. The most important issue, in my opinion, is that the Bill of Rights fails to take every possible circumstance into account and focuses mostly on avoidance of the fears which accompanied English rule. Therefore, the Bill of Rights lacked validity, consistency, and enforceability with each law enforcement agency and court applying them as they saw fit with no true guidelines to follow. The restrictions and provisions that were added later were necessary to legitimize the criminal justice system as a whole and to provide a just system as society evolves and changes with time.
Provide at least two specific details or examples to support your opinion. You may choose to draw these examples from your life and work experiences or from the Ashford University Library’s Westlaw database (contains documents and reviews of court cases).
One great example of how the Bill of Rights, alone, is not adequate for an effective criminal justice system but will hinder justice addresses a recent Supreme Court decision as well. In this example, a defendant is brought before a criminal trial accused of sexually molesting his eight year old niece. During the police interview, the child explained that she had not reported his activities with her over the past two years because he had threatened harm to her father if she told. The mother eventually walked in to suspicious circumstances and was the individual to call the police for investigation. Unfortunately, some time had passed while the mother tried to get her daughter to talk to her about what was happening. Combined with the fact that the mother seems to have interrupted the activities, there was little physical evidence that could be presented at trial but prosecution expected an easy win based on circumstantial evidence and testimony. The Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to "be confronted by the witnesses against" them, giving defendants the right to cross-examine witnesses. The Sixth Amendment forbids prosecutors from proving a defendant's guilt with oral or written hearsay statements from non-testifying witnesses. It has already been established that this little girl was so terrified of repercussions from her uncle that she endured over two years of abuse. Therefore, the uncle walks due to the fact that the parent’s do not want her to suffer anymore and she is too terrified to testify in front of him. However, the recent Supreme Court ruling has declared that circumstances such as this permit the use of closed circuit television for the testimony of the child. The defendant can see the child on a television monitor, but the child cannot see the defendant. The defense attorney can be personally present where the child is testifying, and can cross-examine the child.
The second example is the same but the child is 12 years old here and will testify in the courtroom with the uncle. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a public trial. This particular girl has seen a counselor since the mother pressed charges and the counselor has returned her opinions to the judge. This expert opinion states that the child expresses feelings of extreme guilt and self-blame over her victimization and is very concerned about the fall-out from her peers should they learn of the circumstances. Without exceptions made by Supreme Court decisions over decades, the girl would have no choice but to either explain what happened in front of anyone who chooses to be there, including television crews, or she could perjure herself and claim nothing happened but then the uncle would walk despite his guilt. Neurological Research has concluded that “juveniles… are less able to restrain their impulses and exercise self-control; less capable than adults of considering alternative courses of action and maturely weighing risks and rewards” (Congressional Digest Corporation, 2010). The Supreme Court has acknowledged this research and concluded that juveniles are to be treated differently as offenders and as victims. Therefore, the judge has the ability to close the courtroom to the public and media for the duration of this trial to ensure a fair and safe delivery of all testimony.
Crystal Morgan
References
Bassiouni, C., (1993). Human Rights in Criminal Justice. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Vol 3:235. Retrieved from: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1328&context=djcil
Congressional Digest Corporation. (2010). Does Sentencing a 13-Year-Old Offender to Life Without Parole Constitute "Cruel and Unusual Punishment"? Supreme Court Debates, 13(1), 26-36. Retrieved May 7, 2013 from the EBSCOhost database: http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? sid=79284451-9aa4-4d50-aaa7-dbfbc9c809eb%40sessionmgr113&vid=4&hid=128
Judge Diane, D. S. (1998). Applying Fifth Amendment. Albuquerque Journal. Retrieved from Proquest: http://search.proquest.com/docview/323900632?accountid=32521
Project | 02 Constitutional Law Enforcement
The term ‘law enforcement officer’ technically encompasses all players in the criminal justice system as well as active community safety volunteers. Each day, every one of these individuals works with the sole intent of ensuring safety to the community in addition to holding those who threaten that safety accountable. However, there is one group that stands out as the front line of defense for any community as well as the ‘gatekeepers’ into the criminal justice system. Those within this group are title ‘police officers’. There are many positions within this group, some specialized to specific crime, some oversee those below them but all work for their community to reduce crime, maintain order, and deliver service within it.
Thesis Statement
Sworn law enforcement officers work the front lines of justice to uphold the law through guidelines set by the Constitution of the United States as well as social justice principles despite public as well as government enforced barriers and dissent. This is typically best achieved through the use of various criminal justice theories after working to find correlations between crime and criminal factors. Combined, these factors may be utilized in approaching issues police officers face and finding the best solutions.
Upholding the Constitution
Law enforcement actions are restricted and guided by almost every aspect of the United States Constitution. The guidelines set forth by the Constitution ensure consistencies in the way laws are upheld in addition to validation of the police officer’s position to uphold these laws. However, there are a key few points within many of these Amendments that stand out as the most relevant to the ethical standards guiding police actions. Some of these guidelines are clearly spelled out while others require some research into Supreme Court cases to fully define legal expectations. The most effective way to identify constitutional law as it applies to a police officer’s daily duties is chronologically.
At the beginning there is the First Amendment which guarantees the public the right to peacefully assemble, to speak or write freely, and to (or choose not to) practice the religion they choose without government interference. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly placed restrictions on the right to free speech. These limitations often require police to intercede and verify lawfulness in the face of opposition when a citizen is unaware of the requirements for specific behavior.
One of the three main priorities for police officers is maintaining order in society; this is a responsibility that usually correlates with First Amendment rights. The ‘limitations’ create a situation where law enforcement officer must use their discretion as well as sensitivity before interceding. In addition to this, officers must also be vigilant regarding gatherings so that they may be present to keep the peace while ensuring the petitioner’s rights are granted. Over the past few decades the Supreme Court has expanded this to include abridgements which make the ever-present use of electronics applicable to the regulations as well as rights afforded in the First Amendment.
The most controversial right afforded to American citizens at this moment in time is the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. For public and officer safety this right has many restrictions which police must regularly maintain acute awareness of. Typically, police officers will use questions and answers as well as ‘pat downs’ and visual observation to ensure this right is upheld while keeping all parties safe.
By skipping only the Third Amendment, one of the most important Constitutional Amendments a police officer must abide can be found in the Fourth Amendment which forbids unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant issued as a result of probable cause gained through the courts describing the place to be searched and the persons or time to be seized. The Supreme Court has, through the years, refined the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and its application to new settings as society has evolved.
For law enforcement, in particular, the new definitions are important. Within daily obligations a police officer will often need to work on obtaining a warrant to conduct a search. To accomplish this, an officer must show that a crime occurred and that this suspect likely committed that crime then the officer will sign an affidavit for the judge stating the facts as to what the probable cause is that exists to arrest someone, conduct a search, and/or seize property. In execution of a warrant, police are required to knock on the door of a residence, identify themselves, and state their purpose unless there are obvious factors involved in which knocking would place officer safety is at risk or an unexpected situation arises placing officer or civilian safety in immediate danger. Throughout the search and/or seizure, police are also required to avoid unnecessary damage to property.
There are particular circumstances in which a warrantless search is deemed legal. Some of these instances includes emergency situations (known as exigent circumstances), when the rapid collection of evidence is necessary, when individuals consent to be searched, or when evidence of a crime is in plain view. If a warrantless search, seizure, or arrest occurs probable cause must still be shown after the fact and will be required prior to prosecuting a defendant. Probable cause can be established through a witness to the crime, a reliable informant, a coconspirator, or even a victim. It is important to note, though, that an arrest occurs when a police officer deprives an individual of freedom and the suspect believes he is no longer free to leave, short-term detentions are generally not considered arrests in the formal sense. When these regulations are violated by police, the department becomes vulnerable to several problems. The most common issues are what have known as ‘the exclusionary rule’ in addition to ‘the fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine. Both of these, simply put, state that evidence obtained through any other means than that described will be inadmissible in a criminal court trial no matter how obvious guilt is established through this evidence. There are few exceptions to even this, though, which have been established.
The most note-able exceptions consist of what is known as the ‘Good Faith Rule’ which allows illegally seized evidence to be admitted in court if the officer involved acted in good faith or if the error was minor in magnitude. Police officers will usually face great difficulty in proving the error was minor instead of malicious and therefore should avoid reliance on this exception. The other most common exception is the Inevitable Discovery Rule which states that if the officer can show that evidence would have been discovered without the illegal search or seizure, evidence of guilt can still be admitted to court. This typically takes the form of ‘plain sight’ evidence or evidence obtained in any circumstance where a competent citizen would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Another important Amendment related to law enforcement is the Fifth Amendment which forbids any government official from compelling a suspect incriminate themselves nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. A direct relationship for law enforcement officers between this Amendment and the Fourth Amendment was formed when the Supreme Court in 1966 ruled in the case of Miranda v. Arizona that police had to inform suspects of certain rights prior to initiating an interrogation. This ruling was implemented to prevent police from compelling a suspect to provide evidence of their guilt or to be vulnerable to accusations the suspects Fifth Amendment rights were violated. Miranda warnings do not have to be given until police have probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the individual in custody committed the crime. Again, though, the provision of what an actual ‘arrest’ entails versus simple detainment is a key component here.
Most people consider the Eighth Amendment to be applicable to corrections or the judiciary branch. However, it also applies to law enforcement officers in the respect that that they are the only government officials who have the legal authority to detain and use physical force against citizens. Given the large amount of discretion these officers are provided in most cases they must take great care to only detain citizens when necessary as well as never to use more force than necessary in any given situation.
This brings us to the Fourteenth Amendment which provides that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law and equal protection under the law; it states that no state shall “deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws”. The Due Process Clause is so utterly vital to our country that it is the only command in the United States Constitution stated twice. The first time it is stated is in the Fifth Amendment. Once adopted into the Fourteenth Amendment through a series of Supreme Court decisions, the Due Process Clause became applicable to the states as well. Therefore, while law enforcement officials are provided a wide array of discretion, they are not permitted to utilize this discretion on the bases of race, ethnicity, gender, or any other demographic criteria protected in this country. Discretion must be directly related to the crime, circumstances surrounding the crime, or even the officer’s knowledge of the offender’s background.
The final Amendment to the United States Constitution is the Tenth Amendment which provides that states are permitted to create a constitution unique to said state as long as there are no conflicts with the US Constitution. Police must uphold laws according to the state they are employed as well while placing the federal constitution above all else in any situation a conflict may arise.
Holding Law Enforcement Accountable
Law enforcement officers generally abide by the rules and regulations set forth for them to follow. Nevertheless, there must be a process to investigate alleged violations by police officers followed by sanctions if allegations are found to be true. This is important for several reasons including simple validation of the need for police departments and the officers that are employed by them. Additionally, an officer’s ability to uphold the law without destroying their reputation and career by subjecting the police department to civil litigation procedures as a result of Constitutional violations is a vital aspect of their role in society.
In fact, an article published specifically to examine the need for internal affairs found that “there is a legitimate public interest in the investigation of complaints of police wrongdoing… [This] needs to be investigated because it is in the public interest to do so, even though the wrongdoing in question need not harm any individual…. [investigations must also encompass] police incompetence or the low quality of service provision by police” (Miller, 2010). The organizations responsible for investigating complaints against law enforcement, termed ‘internal affairs’, employ individuals with specific personality traits including minimal bias toward social class, race, career, etc. to ensure they maintain neutral grounds.
This works for many purposes. The use of internal affairs legitimizes police work in public opinion by investigated citizen complaints without prejudice. It also works to send a message to law enforcement that abuse of power will not be tolerated under the color of their office without sanctions ranging from a demerit to criminal proceedings against the officer responsible depending on the severity of the offense. As it has been said for decades ‘with great power comes great responsibility’ and this is especially applicable to law enforcement.
Social Justice
Beyond these restrictions law enforcement is tasked with encouraging and strengthening the social justice principles of equality, solidarity, and human rights for several purposes including validation of the need for police existence and strengthening community bonds to prevent criminal acts.
Law enforcement officers are also members a community. As such they work on the job as well as off the job to utilize social justice principles of equality, solidarity, and human rights to improve or create a socially just community. The driving force that has exhibited the most success on the job is the implementation of various community policing programs. One study that has exhibited this effectively was a study of three separate neighborhoods in Florida which was conducted to measure perception of decreased local crime, increased perception of police performance, neighborhood improvement, and police-community relationships before then after community-policing programs were implemented. Authors found positive correlation between community-policing with all measurable citizen perceptions listed. Research on community policing has shown great results to improve both the officers as well as citizens current issues (Liou & Savage, 1996). In particular, this study is indicative of the need for community policing in this country for all three social justice principles to be realized. Community policing in this study has proven that it reduces fear of perceived crime for citizens as well as encouraging members of the community to work together to improve their neighborhood while improving community-police offer relationships and trust.
The very principles of community policing enforce social justice. “The nature of community policing demands that attention be paid to public expectations of the police, which may include tasks related to public service, as well as tasks directly related to criminal activity. The philosophy of community policing implies listening to citizens and treating seriously citizens' definitions of their problems” (Reisig M., Giacomazzi A., 1998). Many police officers will encourage the principles of equality, solidarity, and human rights on their own time by volunteering in community activities such as coaching youth or Habit 4 Humanity. Actions such as this provide the public opportunities to engage with police officials in a positive setting in addition to providing police officers the opportunity to show their personal concern for the community.
Criminal Justice Theory
Criminal theories assist law enforcement in many ways including understanding the reason people commit crime, locating criminal hot spots, utilizing strategy to best approach specific problems, and analyzing these results to improve future tactics.
There are several specific theories that claim to answer the question of why people commit crimes and that is for good reason, there are many reasons people commit crime. Each crime or type of crime tends to have a type of criminal.
Many claim that the majority of crime is due to drug habits. To support this claim, BJS statistics state that “in 2004 nearly a third of State and a quarter of Federal prisoners committed their offense under the influence of drugs, unchanged since 1997…17% of State and 18% of Federal prisoners committed their crime to obtain money for drugs” (BJS, 2006). However, this could also be the result of the ‘get tough era’ that produced tougher laws on drug use including stricter sentencing for crack cocaine as well as the ‘three strikes’ rule.
Another claim ‘the theory of relative deprivation’ states “inequality breeds social tensions as the less well-off feel dispossessed when compared to wealthier people. The feeling of disadvantage and unfairness leads the poor to seek compensation and satisfaction by all means, including committing crimes against both poor and rich” (Fajnzylber, et al., 2001, pg. 2). This theory assumes those low on the social ladder resent others above them and will commit crime either in response to a feeling that the wealthy have plenty so the poor should just take it or as a method of revenge on those well-off. The theory has been extended to feelings individuals harbor toward police. “Although the Constitution does require government to take action in narrow circumstances, it is largely cast in negative terms…There are only two exceptions to the "no duty to protect" rule: the government must provide humane confinement conditions for prisoners and it must protect a person if the state creates the danger” (Gostin, 2005). Recent Supreme Court cases have negated the duty of police officers to protect individuals as this article exemplifies. For many police officers, this is a prime source of contradiction to their duties.
The most commonly used as well as effective methods for breaking down the reasons people commit crime is to follow trends of the recent past and locate correlations between crime declines with societal change. Then follow through with independent studies to narrow the variables down. For example, this is best put into practice by examining these factors throughout the 1990’s and the subsequent decline in crime rates. In the book Unequal Crime Decline: Theorizing Race, Urban Inequality, and Criminal Violence the author reviews studies that have made claims regarding crime causation through this method but then notices that the crime decline was not steady across race demographics. According to Parker, by utilizing “a sociologists point of view [then conducting a study incorporating all dynamic and static factors, she] suggests that industrial restructuring, residential segregation, racial threat/competition, and others were the direct cause of depleting crime rates. Each explanation she offers shows how the improved conditions of the 1990s had a relatively greater ameliorative effect for African Americans” (as cited by Reid, 2009). This suggests that crime may occur as a direct result of poor or unstable economic conditions in individual communities.
None of these theories or ideas explains white collar, corporate, or government crime though. It is becoming public knowledge that white collar crimes kill, maim, injure, and steal from more people than all street crime combined. Most likely because there is little to almost no oversight, obvious and public leniency when caught, they are difficult to prosecute, those involved will rationalize their crimes on a cost/benefit ratio, there is a great amount of pressure in this country that acclimates financial means to success, and many other reasons.
Those are only a few reasons why people commit crime but it truly comes down to opportunity, crimes of passion, and motivation. Law enforcement has been utilizing many of these criminal theories to increase arrests and minimize crime successfully over the past few decades. One of the most successful strategies police departments employed was to partner with sociologists and psychiatrists to better understand correlations between lifestyle variables and criminal activity. The most famous strategy law enforcement implemented is the use of crime mapping. This software takes information from police officers to create a geographic map showing where a specific crime tends to transpire the most often. Law enforcement will then train specific officers on the best methods to detect then stop or arrest those involved in that area. Police departments across the country have also begun to engage in the community as well as implement community policing strategies with great success.
Critical Issues and Response
Despite all the research, theories, and programs in place to maximize police effectiveness in communities as well as increase job satisfaction for law enforcement officers, there are still many problems officers face regularly. It is only through meta-analysis that we are able to truly narrow down the most critical issues law enforcement officers deal with every day. Some issues affect police officers more than others do, so those are the issues where the best responses must be presented.
The result of continued budget cuts within police departments are felt by everyone as specific crimes increase but police ability decreases. Corpus Christi, Texas seems to have found the best solution this far. In 2009, the new Chief established reorganization and efficiency teams made up of law enforcement officer from all ranks and community members which included representatives of business, government, education, churches, and private citizens. This team reorganized the department with a primary focus on community policing and community involvement. They began to run the department as a business to identify efficient practices and operate a lean and mobile police force. Despite budget cuts employee morale is high, crime is down, and the community is more pleased than ever (PERF, 2013, pg. 18). The program here makes it obvious that it is not solely the lack of funds that pose a problem for a police officer to adequately perform their duties; rather it is the mismanagement of funds made available that should be addressed. If the model for creating a team then investigation utilized in Corpus Christi is recreated with the same goals, it seems any department could make the funds available work for the public instead of being restricted by them.
Another more prominent issue police officers deal with regularly is the propriety of use of force in a given situation. Encounters that end tragically often occur due to a misunderstanding of the nature of the encounter and happen in less than five minutes after the first officer arrives on the scene. The worst of this is that most of them are due to over-reliance on electronic control weapons, officer’s misperceptions, or even an officer’s inability to recognize a mental disorder which may cause the suspect to behave erratically or prevent them from being able to communicate effectively (PERF, 2012). The use-of-force continuum training needs to keep up with the ever changing development and implementation of less-than-lethal weapons, training must also emphasize different methods of subject control other than ECW’s, training needs to be focused and delivered to officers on reading another person’s body language, facial cues, recognizing a medical issue over a legal one, as well as controlling their own social skills (Stephens, 2013). Officers should not reach straight to the Taser before attempting verbal commands or other non-weapon de-escalation tactics. Finally, from the initial stage of training instructors should work with psychiatrists to be aware that officer shootings are constantly on the officers’ mind and that these concerns will affect how they use their skills to de-escalate a problem. Therefore, programs must be initiated that teach officer’s how to recognize and prevent exaggerated threat level perceptions to minimize the use of force for the actual situation. “It can be extremely difficult for officers to assess such situations and ensure their own safety, especially when they have only seconds to make a judgment. For this reason, police chiefs speak of the advantages of “slowing down” difficult encounters, and thinking through tactics so as not to box themselves into a highly charged incident” (PERF, 2012, pg. 46). As part of this series of solutions, a supervisor with many years of experience should be assigned to be the first to arrive at any scene where the call in mentions a weapon involved.
Community trust and understanding is high on the list of issues police face daily. If the community does not trust police they will not report crime, bear witness to a crime, will be more likely to file suit against the police department, and the ‘us versus them’ mentality takes hold of both parties. Trust is earned and the best way to earn it for police departments is through involving the community and helping the community understand the responsibilities and goals of law enforcement officers. Additionally, the amount of time training officers as well as the commitment of funding this training should be consistent with how important this need is. A group of authors conducted a study of several police departments throughout the country over a two year timespan to address this problem and found many issues that require some serious reproach. For instance, “Questions about how much time was devoted to ethics training provided for some interesting findings. A majority of the respondents (70.5 percent) said that they provided four classroom hours or less of [training for new recruits only]… [Findings for resource commitment from the police departments funding found that] only about a third (30.4 percent) invested in formal training in teaching ethics…[the rest] they sought external assistance [in developing ethics training courses as well as funding them]” (Matrix Group International, Inc., 2013). Communities are more prone to trust the local police if they are well trained, carry out their duties in an ethical manner, investigate complaints in a timely and fair manner, engage with the community outside of response calls, and educate officers in the best methods to work with the particular community they are assigned to especially if that community contains a large number of minority citizens. There are a series of steps that can be taken in addition to this to improve officer and civilian relationships.
The first step is to encourage law enforcement officers to work with the youth. This can be accomplished is several ways to ensure all youth in the community have an opportunity to work with an officer such as incorporating a uniformed resource officer in schools instead of a security guard. This officer should have daily, positive contacts with students providing assistance when possible. The officer should have an open-door policy where a student may request to go to their office then be granted a meeting immediately for whatever reason. The resource officer should also act as club director for an extra-curricular group students interested in any form of law enforcement may join. Officers should also be provided incentives for volunteering in the community on their own time with youth activities.
In addition to reaching out to youth at the developmental stages in life, officers should work on their relationships with the adults of the community. Officers in the public should be taught cultural norms of minorities in the areas they patrol. Patrol officers should also be required to volunteer in one community run program for the needy, mentally handicapped, or other disadvantaged demographic for a minimum number of weeks each year as part of their employment requirements. This will encourage officer/citizen contact in non-authoritative situations granting both the officer as well as the citizens the opportunity to witness the other as another human being.
Police officers can utilize social justice principles in addition to various criminal justice theories to understand why crime occurs, what variables come together for a crime to occur, as well as the best methods to engage the community to prevent crime from occurring. Utilizing these tools in addition to engaging law enforcement officers as well as members of the community to identify then propose plausible solutions that would assist in creating a more just society, police would be capable of effectively keeping the peace in communities in spite of barriers placed before them. Law enforcement must always incorporate Constitutional restrictions and regulations. These can assist officers in upholding the law by setting guidelines to follow much like a road map.
References
Bureau of Justice Statistics BJS, (2006). Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004. Office of Justice Programs; Special Report NCJ 213530. Retrieved from: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dudsfp04.pdf
Fajnzylber, P., Lederman, D., Loayza, N. (2001). Inequality and Violent Crime. The Journal of Law and Economics. Retrieved from: http://www.sow.vu.nl/pdf/fajnzylber.pdf
Gostin, L. O. (2005). The Negative Constitution: The Duty to Protect. The Hastings Center Report, 35(5), 10-1. Retrieved from Proquest: http://search.proquest.com/docview/222400243?accountid=32521
Liou, K. T., & Savage, E. G. (1996). Citizen Perception of Community Policing Impact. Public Administration Quarterly, 20(2), 163-179. Retrieved from Proquest: http://search.proquest.com/docview/226976022?accountid=32521
Matrix Group International, Inc., (2013). IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center: Ethics Training in Law Enforcement. International Association of Chiefs of Police. Retrieved from:
Matrix Group International, Inc., (2013). IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center: Standards of Conduct. International Association of Chiefs of Police. Retrieved from:
Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), (2012). An Integrated Approach to De-Escalation and Minimizing Use of Force. Critical Issues Series; Solutions and Promising Practices. Retrieved from: http://www.policeforum.org/critical- issues-series/
Miller, S. (2010). What Makes a Good Internal Affairs Investigation? Criminal Justice Ethics, 29(1), 29-40. Retrieved from Proquest: http://search.proquest.com/docview/846992382?accountid=32521
Reid, L. W. (2009). Unequal Crime Decline: Theorizing Race, Urban Inequality, and Criminal Violence. Contemporary Sociology, 38(5), 424-425. Retrieved from Proquest: http://search.proquest.com/docview/233572290? accountid=32521
Reisig M., Giacomazzi A., (1998). Citizen Perceptions of Community Policing: Are Attitudes Toward Police Important? Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 21(3) 547-561. Retrieved from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=872258&show=abstract
Stephens, D., (2013). Creating Community Relationships That Will Survive Controversial Uses of Force. Critical Issues in Policing: Strategies for Resolving Conflict and Minimizing Use of Force. Retrieved from: http://www.policeforum.org/critical-issues-series/
Project | 03 The Supreme Court and Policing
A famous quote used in courts today begins with the phrase ‘evolving standards’ ending with whatever it is they are attempting to rule on. These two little words define our justice system as it has been, as it is, and as it will be in years to come. From the time our founding fathers transcribed the constitution they were pulling laws from English rule and applying them in a fashion that illustrates ‘evolving standards of decency’ to prevent the abuse they had been witness to. The same concept exists in every law or regulation we follow today; especially in laws regarding the way police manage a suspect in any crime. The fourteenth amendment to the constitution guarantees ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violate, 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 seized’.
Thesis Statement
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides general protection against unreasonable search and seizure by police but cases brought before the Supreme Court, such as Weeks v. United States, Silverthorne Lumber Company, Inc., Et Al. v. United States, and Mapp v. Ohio are what truly define these protections for citizens.
Weeks v. United States
The Supreme Court case Weeks v. United States actually poses a few questions but one, in particular, will help define the current laws regarding the ability of police to search for and take into evidence personal belongings of a suspect. At the first point of entrance, police officers forcibly entered Mr. Weeks residence at a time he was absent without a warrant and searched the premises. Police returned at a separate time without a warrant and were permitted entrance, possibly by a roommate, at which they searched Mr. Weeks’ bedroom. They left the home with personal records, lottery tickets, and letters that had been mailed to Mr. Weeks then arrived at his workplace to arrest him for using the United States Postal Service to transport lottery tickets. These articles were used against in criminal proceedings and Mr. Weeks was convicted of gambling. After which, Mr. Weeks’ attorney pursued a ruling that would return the seized property to his client and, most importantly, to overturn the conviction because the evidence seized was handled illegally so they should have been excluded the criminal proceedings Mr. Week’s was convicted in. Mr. Weeks also claimed a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment due to aforementioned illegally obtained personal property being used as testimony of guilt.
In making the ultimate ruling for this case, the White Court referred to several past cases which set precedence for their decision. The first, Boyd v. United States decided in 1886 established an interpretation of the Fourth Amendment which forbid the practice of police using what was called ‘general warrants’ to search anyplace for anything and instead clarified by stating a warrant to search personal property must be one “which described the thing to be searched for, the person and place to be searched… [for] a man’s home is his castle” (Google Scholar, 1886, para. 57). This decision was an important one if only for the reason that the Boyd case interpreted the founding father’s intent at the time this amendment was written, the decision even referenced what it was the found father’s wanted to ensure never occurred in the United States that they had all been subject to under English rule. Post Boyd came Hale v. Henkel which further ruled that the compulsory production of personal papers to government officials was a violation of both the fourth and fifth amendments. In addition to Boyd, the court found the principle established here narrowed to letters and sealed packages sent by mail in stating the “guarantee of the right of the people to be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures” (Google Scholar, 1914. Para. 17) in Ex parte Jackson. Another precedence the Supreme Court used was established in several cases prior to Weeks including Rex v. Barnett; Rex v. Kinsey; United States v. Mills; and United States v. McHie. Together these cases conclude that a police official “acting under color of his office, without even the sanction of a warrant, constitute an invasion of the rights within the protection afforded by the Fourth Amendment” (Google Scholar, 1914. Para. 28). Yet another case used as precedent was Wise v. Henkel in which the opinion of the Court was the papers seized from this defendants residence must be returned because “the writ of habeas corpus cannot be made to perform the functions of a writ of error” (Justia Co., n.d.). Regarding the violation of the Fifth Amendment, the Supreme Court referred to severity of consequences made possible prior to Bram v. United States. The case of Bram was used as a way to encourage fellow Justices to be careful when contemplated applicability of bot these amendments as they correlate to the constitution.
In efforts to balance the precedence utilized and as a means to establish guidelines for search and seizure of papers that are permitted for use in a criminal court trial against the defendant, the Court looked to Adams v. New York, supra. This case was brought before the Supreme Court to challenge the use of papers seized with a warrant as a violation of the fourth and fifth amendments. However, the Court ruled that the warrant issued described what to search for and the place to search making the admittance of papers permissible. In relation to the Weeks case, Boyd v. United States established that the police entering the home forcibly without a warrant to search for and take the documents was an illegal act of obtainment of evidence and Ex parte Jackson was applied to validate the ruling in Boyd applied to the letters, records, and lottery tickets seized. These two cases, alone, urged the Supreme Court Justices majority opinion to rule that evidence obtained during these searches are not allowable in any criminal court proceeding. Hale v. Henkel was used to declare the use of illegally obtained paper to be a violation of the Fifth Amendment under the grounds that they are in essence compelling a witness to testify against himself against his will. The totality of Rex v. Barnett; Rex v. Kinsey; United States v. Mills; and United States v. McHie applied to this case to state that the officers, acting under the color of their office, acted without a warrant invaded the constitutional rights of Mr. Weeks by entering the home as they did on both occasions. However, due to Adams v. New York, supra the defendant is not entitled to remedies by the state as what the police officers did regarding arrest as well as search and seizure was done prior to “the finding of the indictment in the Federal court… the Fourth Amendment is not directed to individual misconduct of such officials. Its limitations reach the Federal Government and its agencies” (Google Scholar, 1914. Para. 31). Finally, the Court applied Wise v. Henkel to order officials to return all papers seized by police to Mr. Weeks instead of using them to force appearance in front of a judge for criminal proceedings to justify the error during the search and seizure.
The federal conviction of Mr. Weeks on charges on gambling were overturned and his property returned to him as the court found that exhibiting the seized papers to the Grand jury was forbidden due to the way in which the search and seizure was conducted. Actions taken by police at that time violated his Fourth Amendment right against a search being conducted on private property without a warrant. In ruling on this case, the Justices put such value on the majority opinion that it was stated if papers and letter were used against a person in a situation such as this “the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures is of no value…and, might as well be stricken from the Constitution” (Google Scholar, 1961). The Court also found violations of his Fifth Amendment right forbidding any government official from compelling a defendant to testify against himself against his will as the letters had done.
Silverthorne Lumber Company, Inc., Et Al. v. United States
The two owners of Silverthorne Lumber Company, Incorporated were arrested and being detained on one charge for a few hours during which time Department of Justice representatives arrived at their office. Based on an invalid subpoena for certain documents relating to the charge in the indictment then on file, they searched and took into possession all books, papers and documents they could find then told all employees to go to the District Attorneys’ office. Defense attorney requested the return of possessions taken which was challenged by the District Attorney because said documents had been delivered to the Grand Jury due to illegal acts discovered. After the District Court ordered the return of the originals to the owners copies of the documents were made, originals were returned, and a new indictment was issued. Once the new indictment came to light on the basis of knowledge gained from the seized documents, the Court subpoenaed the return of original documents which the accused refused to comply with. The refusal led to charges of contempt resulting in Silverthorne Lumber Company, Inc. being fined two hundred fifty dollars and Fredrick Silverthorne to be imprisoned until the subpoena was complied with. The manner in which the physical papers were obtained was illegal, and government officials agreed. The issue that was brought before the Supreme Court was whether knowledge gained from the illegal obtainment may be used against the company in court to pursue charges. (Google Scholar, 1920)
In deciding this case, the Court first looked to Weeks v. United States which is responsible for establishing the groundwork for the exclusionary rule. This rule states that if “evidence is obtained in breach of the constitutional rights of a suspect it is subject to automatic exclusion at trial” (Daly, 2011). If the trial has passed and the accused were convicted based on illegally obtained evidence, the charges are overturned. Adams v. New York was also taken into consideration but no precedence was set because this case did not fit the criteria established. Both Flagg v. United States and Linn v. United States addressed the issue of whether the rule for corporations was different regarding protection from being forced to produce its’ books, documents, etc. Rulings in Flagg v. United States and Linn v. United States were also utilized in this case to confirm that “the rights of a corporation against unlawful search and seizure are to be protected even if the same result might have been achieved in a lawful way” (Google Scholar, 1920, para. 3). The Court then applied the Weeks case to find that evidence obtained illegally is not admissible even for a corporation
The problem that needed to be answered by the Supreme Court was whether evidence obtained during an illegal search uncovers evidence of a separate crime than the one being investigated may be used against the corporation in court proceedings. The uniqueness of applying the laws established in the Weeks case to a corporation forced the Supreme Court to expand upon it. “The essence of the 4th Amendment’s provision forbidding the acquisition of evidence in a certain way is that not merely evidence so acquired shall not be used before the Court but that it shall not be used at all [now termed ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’]. Allowing knowledge from documents to be used would reduce the 4th Amendment to a mere form of words” (Olen, n.d.). The combination of the cases where precedence was drawn led to a majority opinion, now termed ‘fruit of the, that the knowledge gained from copies of the returned documents may not be used in court because the knowledge was obtained from an initial illegal search.
Mapp v. Ohio
Upon receiving a report that Ms. Mapp was harboring a man wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing and there was a large amount of policy paraphernalia in the home. When police arrived they were denied entrance without a warrant at her attorneys’ advice. A few hours later police returned Ms. Mapp did not answer immediately so one of the doors to the home was forced open and police entered. About this time, Ms. Mapp’s attorney arrived but was denied access to his client or her home. Ms. Mapp again requested a warrant at which time a piece of paper was flashed at her, she grabbed it, stuffed in her blouse, and a struggle ensued between her and as the officer attempted to regain custody of the paper. With the help of another officer, Ms. Mapp was forced to return the paper without an opportunity to read it. The search began while Ms. Mapp watched while handcuffed her bedroom then spread to the rest of her home, including all personal belongings and the basement of the dwelling. She was arrested and later upon discovery of obscene materials and photos. “Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive” (OYEZ, 2013). During the trial no search warrant was produced by the prosecution nor was there any excuse or explanation regarding the failure to produce one leaving defense to wonder if one ever existed. The issue left for the Supreme Court was to decide whether evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is permitted as evidence to be used against the defendant in a state criminal proceeding.
This case was brought before the Warren Court which was much later in years than either Weeks or Silverthorne Lumber providing Justices involved several preceding cases to make a confident ruling. One such case was brought to attention by the state stating that if the evidence were obtained illegally, it is still permissible in state criminal proceedings as the precedence created with Wolf v. Colorado. In the Wolf case, the majority opinion stated that
“In a prosecution in a State court for a State crime the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure… [there] appears to be a plain implication of the Court's opinion that the federal exclusionary rule is not a command of the Fourth Amendment but is a judicially created rule of evidence which Congress might negate” (Google Scholar, 1949, para. 13).
In response to this, the precedence presented in Boyd v. United States was contradictory to Wolf in stating “any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of crime or to forfeit his goods, is within the condemnation . . . [of those Amendments]” (Google Scholar, 1961). Logically, another case to set precedence for Mapp was Weeks v. United States which interpreted the Fourth Amendment to “secure the people, their persons, houses, papers and effects against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law” (Google Scholar, 1961). The Weeks case opinion even stated that allowing use of illegally seized evidence is a denial of constitutional rights of the suspect. The Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States case was referenced, as well, as the language to prevent the Fourth Amendment from being reduced to a form of words alone. Byars v.United States was important in ruling in the Mapps case because that case found when a challenge to the evidence being obtained lawfully is filed on time and yet unlawfully obtained evidence is permitted for use against a defendant in a criminal case; it is a clear violation of the constitution. Additionally, precedence was set in Olmstead v. United States when it states that the Fourth Amendment clearly forbids the use of evidence gathered without a lawful warrant in criminal proceedings against a defendant. Yet again reiterated in McNabb v. United States the Court found “on Constitutional grounds…both in the federal and state courts, which were based … ignorant and untutored persons, in whose minds the power of officers was greatly magnified'” (Google Scholar, 1961). In Palko v. Connecticut, the Court found that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments are valid against the states as well as the federal level. The Wolf case was noted and not overruled but the Justices mention that the Court must reexamine the ordered liberty concept as decided in Wolf during the Mapp ruling. Boyd was used to address the problem of using a person’s personal papers, obtained by unlawful means, against them as an unconstitutional act just as the photos were being used against Ms. Mapp in her state criminal case. The Court used a combination of Weeks and Silverthorne to conclude “conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confessions . . . should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts . . .," and that such evidence "shall not be used at all” (Google Scholar, 1961). The Court also applied Byars, Olmstead, and McNabb to confirm the simple fact that permitting illegally obtained evidence for use against a United States citizen at any level of government would be a clear and unjust abuse of the constitution. Finally, the Palko case was used to clarify the fact that an intelligent, trained, and effective police department should have no need to utilize any means outside the constitutional law to investigate a suspect in a criminal case.
In Mapps v. United States the Supreme Court was tasked with ruling on whether illegally obtained evidence is permissible in criminal court proceedings against the defendant. The majority opinion made a ruling that is now law in most states and officially termed the exclusionary rule which states that any evidence obtained by government officials by search and seizures which violate the constitution are not admissible in state court. In fact, the decision in Mapp was so ground-breaking that New York’s police commissioner at the time stated he was forced into “creating new policies and new instructions for the implementation of Mapp . . . . [Decisions such as Mapp] create tidal waves and earthquakes which require rebuilding of our institutions sometimes from their very foundations upward…It [also] appears that, prior to Mapp, New York prosecutors were also unfamiliar with and uninterested in the law of search and seizure” (Kamisar, 2003).
Search and Seizure Standards
These three cases have formed the standards of constitutionally conducted search and seizures in many ways. To make sense of the way police are permitted to conduct any search and seizure that is admissible in court the cases must be viewed in chronological order. First, the Weeks case formed the basis for the exclusionary rule by forbidding any evidence seized in an illegitimate way by any government official to be admitted in a federal criminal court case. Second, for Silverthorne it was important to establish that this rule not only extends to corporations but any knowledge of any crime, either the one being investigated or a new crime, that is uncovered during an illegal search is not admissible in a criminal court case. This is now termed ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ which is explanatory in and of itself. Finally, drawing upon both Weeks and Silverthorne, the Supreme Court was able to apply both the exclusionary rule as well as fruit of the poisonous tree to the states in the Mapps case. To sum it up, there are now regulations for police to adhere to that reduce the ‘gray area’ left in the broad language of the Fourth Amendment. It does not matter if the suspect is a corporation or individual nor does it matter whether police are investigating a federal or state crime, any outcome of a search and seizure is only admissible if conducted under a warrant obtained by a judge or other rare circumstances. These cases have also created a sense of security among citizens in addition to securing a more reliable justice system. As one article explains, “by creating a possibility of suppression, the rule makes the Fourth Amendment a factor in police and judicial thinking” (Kamisar, 2003). These three cases, ending with Mapp, reached even further than this, though, they succeeded in the Rehnquist Court’s agenda which “incorporate[d] virtually all of the criminal procedure provisions of the federal Bill of Rights and…reinforce[d] incorporation by pursuing a variety of other strategies for facilitating federal court review of state proceedings” (Davies, 2010). It seems the totality of circumstance after these cases were decided was to place these rules of police conduct in stone across the nation.
What becomes obvious from review of as Weeks v. United States, Silverthorne Lumber Company, Inc., Et Al. v. United States, and Mapp v. Ohio is the Supreme Court’s desire to narrow the definition of the Fourth Amendment and deter the use of general warrants as they were used in England. These cases, in particular, interpret the intentions of this nation’s founding fathers’ at the time the constitution was written. They put restrictions on the manner in which police conduct investigative responsibilities that promotes a more reliable system and validates evidence presented at trial. Without these particular interpretations, the manner in which police conduct a search and seizure would promote discrimination, distrust, and irresponsibility by government officials.
References
Daly, Y. M. (2011). Judicial Oversight of Policing: Investigations, Evidence and the Exclusionary Rule. Crime, Law and Social Change, 55(2-3), 199-215. Retrieved from Proquest: doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10611-011-9279-4
Davies, T. Y. (2010). The Supreme Court Giveth and the Supreme Court Taketh Away: The Century of Fourth Amendment “Search and Seizure” Doctrine. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100(3), 933-1041. Retrieved from Proquest: http://search.proquest.com/docview/849016353?accountid=32521
Google Scholar, (1886). Boyd v. United States. 116 US 616 - Supreme Court 1886. Retrieved from: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? case=9067527596654000149&hl=en&as_sdt=2,48&as_vis=1
Google Scholar, (1961). Mapp v. Ohio. 367 US 643 - Supreme Court 1961.Retrieved from: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? case=589965672959279882&q=Mapp%20v%20Ohio&hl=en&as_sdt=2,15&as_vis=1
Google Scholar, (1920). Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States. 251 US 385 - Supreme Court 1920. Retrieved from: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? case=1946214737793111775&q=Silverthorne%20Lumber%20&hl=en&as_sdt=2,15&as_vis=1
Google Scholar, (1914). Weeks v. United States. 232 US 383 - Supreme Court 1914. Retrieved from: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? case=8676110639881267815&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Justia Co., (n.d.). Wise v. Henkel - (1911). US Supreme Court Center; 220 U.S. 556. Retrieved from: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/220/556/
Kamisar, Y. (2003). In Defense of the Search and Seizure Exclusionary Rule. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 26(1), 119-140. Retrieved from Proquest: http://search.proquest.com/docview/235190790?accountid=32521
Olen, J. (n.d.). Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States Case Brief. Jared W. Olen; Law School Resources; United States Supreme Court 251 U.S. 385 (1920). Retrieved from: http://www.jaredolen.com/law-school-resources/criminal-procedure/silverthorne-lumber-co-v-united-states/
OYEZ, (2013). Mapp v. Ohio. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved from: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_236
To see more or discuss possible work let's talk >>
Project | 01
Project | 02
Project | 03
