2500

A final paper with a minimum of 1000 words will be required at the completion of this course. The topic of the paper can be anything discussed during the course.

Examples of paper topics are:

Discussing Miranda v. Arizona
Constitutionality of search and seizure
Forensic Evidence

The text must be cited a minimum of four (4) times in your paper as well as at least one outside source. Wikipedia is not a valid source for a scholarly paper due to a lack of verified information. Your topic must be approved prior to the completion of the paper. Topics will be due for approval by week #2. You are to submit your choice of topics by the end of week #2. Papers are to follow APA requirements.

Paper Requirements:

The assignments shall require that you conduct a more detailed analysis of a subject area than what is covered in our text. The assignments must be original work conducted by the student. Plagiarism or abuse of research will not be tolerated and shall result in reporting to the university and a failing grade. Guidelines for acceptable research methods are noted in the rules and regulations of Indiana Tech. Three topical papers will be assigned during the course and shall be graded in accordance with the guideline for the assignment. The topical paper is worth 200 points.

The class projects are designed to aid you in critically thinking about a variety of criminal justice topics and to get you engaged in the problem-solving process. They will be utilized in class to stimulate discussion and to prompt any questions you may have about the criminal justice system. The class projects are to be word-processed, size 12 font, double spaced with one-inch margins around the page (default), using the Times New Roman letter style. Your responses should be thorough and scholarly. Avoid jargon and street language as you are completing each of the responses to these questions. For instance, "cop" is generally unacceptable, "police officer" is preferred. A person may be "mentally ill" or "legally insane," not "nuts.

Papers shall be written in the APA style and be 1000+ words in length. They shall reference the text formally at least four times. A word count shall be included at the end of the paper and a reference section will also be included by the student. Remember this is not a book report. This is a written analysis and critical review of an assigned topic. Papers must be typed in paragraph form. Address topics in paragraph form and do not use a bulleted or numbered list.

Use the following link to The Owl at Purdue University for the proper use of the APA format:

Running head: SEARCH AND SEIZURE

SEARCH AND SEIZURE 2

Having Trouble Meeting Your Deadline?

Get your assignment on 2500 completed on time. avoid delay and – ORDER NOW

Get a 20% Discount

Search and Seizure

CJ 2500

Indiana Institute of Technology

The Fourth Amendment, which puts in place the power of the police in relation to obtaining evidence, is the bedrock of the search-and-seizure law in the United States, as discussed by Hinkle (2015). One of the first cases on search and seizure dates back to 1760 when the master of England gave warrants to have some pamphleteers’ homes to be searched as a way to combat their propagandist influence. These pamphleteers used to go out with flyers that mocked the master and his associates, and when the ruler found, he gave the warrants. In any case, despite the ways that the Fourth Amendment was not in play, the pamphleteers fought back by claiming that the searches took place after a "singular attack" (Kerr, 2013). This paper discusses search and seizure, especially as an indispensable aspect of the Fourth Amendment, including challenges and emerging issues.

Likely, in reaction to the incident, the United States' founding fathers drafted the Fourth Amendment, which is an integral part of the Constitution, since they disagreed with the ruler's general warrants. Fundamentally, any person that had a general warrant could go into any house or building and search or seize illegal stock. Additionally, government authorities could essentially get in private places without deciding why they are there, where they will search, and the purpose of the search. The Fourth Amendment is considered a part of the Bill of Rights, which was added to the United States of America's Constitution and implemented started on15th December 1791. The amendment accentuates the benefits of the people to be secure in their kin, houses, papers, and effects, against searches and seizures that are deemed unreasonable, to ensure that any evidence confiscated will not be dismissed. Search warrants are issued once it is demonstrated through probable cause supported by oath of affirmation. The place or person to be searched ought to be described in detail (Kerr, 2013; Legal Information Institute, n.d.).

Even though the Fourth Amendment is critical in any investigation since it ensures people of prosperity and security in their homes, it has its inadequacies. There have been conversations concerning it since it was realized considering the changes since the 1700s, which presents challenges with regard to what is seen as a malevolent or worth giving a court order for, especially since there are progressively difficult issues these days. For instance, explosives, drugs, illegal firearms, kid sensual diversion, and missing people among others are illegal, and loosening up the Fourth Amendment to people related to these activities is questionable. Loosely, when the recently referenced things are in someone's home or vehicle, they speak to a danger to one another person around them, as such conversations turning around the constitutional amendment (Hinkle, 2015; Legal Information Institute, n.d.).

The search, seizure, stop and search, warrant, sensible defense, and the exclusionary standard are the essential parts of the Fourth Amendment. The courts are responsible for choosing the things that fall under pursuit and seizure in the Fourth Amendment so the individual can value the protection of the rectification (Swanson, Chamelin, Territo, and Taylor, 2006). Regardless, and if, by any chance, the Court decides that the issues present before it is unrelated to the Fourth Amendment, the individual will be presented to look and seizure. As per the Fourth Amendment, an infringement is said to have happened if a professional associated with a police organization infringes on a person's wise desire for security. Before long, frisks and searches can be challenging to execute when performing butt-driven or genital assessments. Also, electronic perception and a canine sniff involve reasonable questions under the Fourth Amendment if and when they are maintained by a dependable explanation and are executed in an ordinary manner (Kim, 2017).

A seizure can occur in two distinct manners. It can either be the seizure of a property or a person. Seizure of property is said to happen if a person's possessory eagerness for property has been intruded with; an individual is said to be taken advantage of if their lucky break has been infringed by the authorities (Kim, 2017). To lawfully seize an individual or property, the person in authority of the law should have valid warrants. Nonetheless, a police officer can make warrantless catches if an authority has a credible conviction that a suspect has submitted or is a hazard to individuals when all is said in done (Hinkle, 2015; Kim, 2017).

Stop and frisk searches consists of another aspect of the Fourth Amendment. As indicated, a warrant and sensible reasoning are various segments in the change, and they expect significant activity in search and seizure, as discussed above. Another element of search and seizure is the exclusionary rule, which is a standard established to ensure that police officers submit to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment concerning search and seizure. The standard communicates that if any authorization is gained unlawfully or does not keep up the Fourth Amendment, it is inadmissible or cannot be used in a court (Taylor, Fritsch, & Liederbach, 2014). For instance, in Map v. Ohio, the Supreme Court concluded that the ruling in Wolf v. Colorado was broken since the Court surrendered that it got evidence unlawfully. Stop and search, edges and motivations behind the area, blockades with reasonable and authentic explanation, and where it is shown that there is no other effective techniques material are exclusions of the Fourth Amendment (Swanson et al., 2006).

The police should not waste time with a warrant to use robots to investigate the patio nor mess with a warrant to follow one's activities for a few days. With all the recent advancements, police can make use of devices, for instance, stingrays to screen a target area or property (Feeney, 2017). A stingray transmits a sign that is upheld as such force nearby phones to connect with it. Regardless of the way that this development can be used for acceptable and help locate an unsafe individual. However, what is keeping the police from using it and get correspondence information of legit people? Additionally, just as this is not adequate, if the organization were to decide to present GPS trackers in people's computers (PCs) or vehicles and use them to keep an eye out for its locals, it would not break the Fourth Amendment (Feeney, 2017).

As much as the guidelines used in unraveling the Fourth Amendment have progressed, it is understood that there have been massive improvements in the use of exclusionary rule, Miranda forewarning, and warrants. However, more is still needed, despite how everything ought to be done. Current and new elements ought to be adapted to the changes.

References

Feeney, M. (2017). How the Fourth Amendment can keep up with modern surveillance. The Weekly Standard. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/how-the-fourth-amendment-can-keep-up-with-modern-surveillance

Hinkle, R. K. (2015). Legal constraint in the US Courts of Appeals. The Journal of Politics, 77(3), 721-735.

Kerr, O. S. (2013). The Curious History of Fourth Amendment Searches. The Supreme Court Review, 2012(1), 67-97.

Kim, J. (2017). Fourth Amendment. Legitimate Information Institute. Recovered from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment

Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). U. S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

Swanson, C., Chamelin, C., Territo, L., and Taylor, R. (2006). Criminal investigation. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Taylor, R. W., Fritsch, E. J., & Liederbach, J. (2014). Digital crime and digital terrorism. Prentice Hall Press.

SafeAssign Logo

2022_SPRING_CJ2500EOL51 – BASICS OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION – 51

Final Paper

Kejuan Hemphill

on Mon, Mar 07 2022, 8:42 PM

60% highest match

Submission ID: 7e1d9197-7a71-4208-8e6c-169144807815

Attachments (1)

· CJ 2500 MOD 6 PAPER.docx 60%

Word Count: 1,328

Attachment ID: 5283790954

CJ 2500 MOD 6 PAPER.docx

1 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE

As the issue of searches and seizures has raised some important questions regarding privacy and citizen’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, it is crucial to review its characteristics. It was found that reasonableness of privacy expectations is the focal point that determines whether searches and seizures can be performed.

The topic of searches and seizures has been one of the most debated due to the inconsistencies in the expectations of privacy. Due to such inconsistencies, it is important to study the topic in greater detail with an objective to identify in which cases searches and seizures are reasonable and in which cases they are not.

One of the most fundamental rights American citizens possess is the ability not to have illegal searches and seizures, as laid out in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Under the Amendment, a citizen is secure in his or her right to property against unreasonable seizures and searches (Brady, 2016). The “unreasonable” component of the definition is the most important in this context since there may be reasonable searches and seizures (depending on whether a potential offender had a right to expect privacy) (Find Law, 2017).

The expectation of privacy is not obsolete, rather, it is determined by reasonableness (Kenneally, 2016); individual’s effort to exclude the access of others from property strongly indicates one’s expectation of privacy. However, judges usually assess the reasonableness of one’s expectation of privacy on the basis of their own experiences, which causes inconsistencies in how citizens perceive privacy versus how the law is treating them (Fogel, 2014).

The primary issue regarding searches and seizures is associated with an individual’s reasonable expectations of privacy that are being determined depending on the circumstances. When it comes to the reasonableness of such expectations, an individual whose vehicle was stopped by a police officer for a traffic violation cannot reasonably expect privacy since a breach took place. If the officer has some suspicions and conducts a search, the court will deem this search and possible seizures as reasonable.

On the other hand, if the police conduct an unwarranted search of an individual’s house without prior warning or explanation, such an event will be considered unreasonable. Therefore, there is a line between reasonable and unreasonable searches and seizures that depend on whether an individual has a right to expect privacy.

The expectation of privacy is a concept that goes hand-in-hand with searches and seizures conducted by the representatives of the law enforcement. Searches and seizures are considered reasonable in those cases when citizens do not have reasonable expectations of privacy as explained in the examples with houses and automobiles. To avoid misunderstandings, it is recommended to define the concept of reasonableness in greater detail since the inconsistencies in how courts and citizens interpret it.

1 THE INQUIRY, SEIZURE, PAUSE AND SEARCH, WARRANT, REASONABLE PROTECTION, AND THE EXCLUSIONARY STANDARD ARE THE FUNDAMENTAL PIECES OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. 2 THE COURTS ARE ANSWERABLE FOR PICKING THE THINGS THAT FALL UNDER PURSUIT AND SEIZURE IN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT SO THE INDIVIDUAL CAN ESTEEM THE SECURITY OF THE CORRECTION (SWANSON, CHAMELIN, TERRITO, AND TAYLOR, 2006). 1 IN ANY CASE, AND IF, BY ANY OPPORTUNITY, THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT THE ISSUES PRESENT BEFORE IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THE SINGULAR WILL BE INTRODUCED TO LOOK AND SEIZURE. According to the Fourth Amendment, an encroachment is said to have occurred on the off chance that an expert related with a police association encroaches on an individual's astute longing for security. 2 IN A LITTLE WHILE, SEARCHES AND SEARCHES CAN BE TRYING TO EXECUTE WHILE PERFORMING BUTT-DRIVEN OR GENITAL APPRAISALS. LIKEWISE, ELECTRONIC DISCERNMENT AND A CANINE SNIFF INCLUDE SENSIBLE INQUIRIES UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IF AND WHEN THEY ARE KEPT UP WITH BY A RELIABLE CLARIFICATION AND ARE EXECUTED IN A COMMON WAY (KIM, 2017).

A seizure can happen in two particular habits. 2 IT CAN EITHER BE THE CAPTURE OF A PROPERTY OR AN INDIVIDUAL. Capture of property is said to occur in the event that an individual's possessory excitement for property has been interrupted with; an individual is supposed to be exploited assuming their big chance has been encroached by the specialists (Kim, 2017). 1 TO LEGALLY HOLD ONTO AN INDIVIDUAL OR PROPERTY, THE INDIVIDUAL IN POWER OF THE LAW OUGHT TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL WARRANTS. 2 REGARDLESS, A COP CAN MAKE WARRANTLESS GETS ASSUMING AN AUTHORITY HAS A TRUSTWORTHY CONVICTION THAT A SUSPECT HAS SUBMITTED OR IS A RISK TO PEOPLE WHEN EVERYTHING IS SAID IN DONE (HINKLE, 2015; Kim, 2017).

Pause and search look through comprises of one more part of the Fourth Amendment. 1 AS DEMONSTRATED, A WARRANT AND REASONABLE THINKING ARE DIFFERENT SECTIONS IN THE CHANGE, AND THEY ANTICIPATE CRITICAL MOVEMENT IN SEARCH AND SEIZURE, AS TALKED ABOUT ABOVE. 2 ONE MORE COMPONENT OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE IS THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE, WHICH IS A STANDARD LAID OUT TO GUARANTEE THAT COPS SUBMIT TO THE NECESSITIES OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT CONCERNING SEARCH AND SEIZURE. THE STANDARD CONVEYS THAT ON THE OFF CHANCE THAT ANY APPROVAL IS ACQUIRED UNLAWFULLY OR DOESN'T KEEP UP THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, IT IS UNACCEPTABLE OR CAN'T BE UTILIZED IN A COURT (TAYLOR, FRITSCH, AND LIEDERBACH, 2014). 1 FOR EXAMPLE, IN MAP V. OHIO, THE SUPREME COURT REASONED THAT THE DECISION IN WOLF V. 2 COLORADO WAS BROKEN SINCE THE COURT GAVE UP THAT IT GOT PROOF UNLAWFULLY. Pause and search, edges and inspirations driving the region, bars with sensible and bona fide clarification, and where it is shown that there could be no other viable procedures material are rejections of the Fourth Amendment (Swanson et al., 2006).

The police ought not sit around idly with a warrant to utilize robots to examine the porch nor meddle with a warrant to follow one's exercises for a couple of days. With every one of the new headways, police can utilize gadgets, for example, stingrays to screen an objective region or property (Feeney, 2017). 1 A STINGRAY COMMUNICATES A SIGN THAT IS MAINTAINED AS SUCH POWER CLOSE BY TELEPHONES TO ASSOCIATE WITH IT. No matter what the way that this improvement can be utilized for OK and assist with finding a hazardous person. 1 MOREOVER, SIMILARLY AS THIS ISN'T SUFFICIENT, ASSUMING THE ASSOCIATION WERE TO CHOOSE TO INTRODUCE GPS TRACKERS IN INDIVIDUALS' (PCS) OR VEHICLES AND USE THEM TO LOOK OUT FOR ITS LOCAL PEOPLE, IT WOULDN'T BREAK THE FOURTH AMENDMENT (FEENEY, 2017). 2 AS MUCH AS THE RULES UTILIZED IN DISENTANGLING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT HAVE ADVANCED, IT IS PERCEIVED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN GIGANTIC UPGRADES IN THE UTILIZATION OF EXCLUSIONARY RULE, MIRANDA ADMONISHING, AND WARRANTS. In any case, more is as yet required, notwithstanding the way in which everything should be finished. Current and new components should be adjusted to the changes. ( Brady, 2016).

References

Brady, M. (2016). 3 THE LOST “EFFECTS” OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: 4 GIVING PERSONAL PROPERTY DUE PROTECTION. The Yale Law Journal, 125(4), 796-1149.

Find Law. (2017). 2 SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAW. Web.

Fogel, J. (2014). From the bench: 3 A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. Litigation Journal, 40(4), 1-5.

Kenneally, E. (2016). Reasonable expectations of privacy indicators. Web.

Feeney, M. (2017). 2 HOW THE FOURTH AMENDMENT CAN KEEP UP WITH MODERN SURVEILLANCE. THE WEEKLY STANDARD. RETRIEVED FROM HTTPS://WWW.WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM/WEEKLY-STANDARD/HOW-THE-FOURTH-AMENDMENT-CAN-KEEP-UP-WITH-MODERN-SURVEILLANCE

Hinkle, R. K. (2015). 2 LEGAL CONSTRAINT IN THE US COURTS OF APPEALS. THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, 77(3), 721-735.

Kerr, O. S. (2013). 2 THE CURIOUS HISTORY OF FOURTH AMENDMENT SEARCHES. THE SUPREME COURT REVIEW, 2012(1), 67-97.

Kim, J. (2017). Fourth Amendment. 2 LEGITIMATE INFORMATION INSTITUTE. RECOVERED FROM HTTPS://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/WEX/FOURTH_AMENDMENT LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE. (n.d.). U. S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment. 2 RETRIEVED FROM HTTPS://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/CONSTITUTION/FOURTH_AMENDMENT SWANSON, C., CHAMELIN, C., TERRITO, L., AND TAYLOR, R. (2006). Criminal investigation. 2 MCGRAW-HILL HIGHER EDUCATION.

Taylor, R. 2 W., FRITSCH, E. J., & LIEDERBACH, J. (2014). 2 DIGITAL CRIME AND DIGITAL TERRORISM. PRENTICE HALL PRESS.

Citations (4/4)

1. 1Another student's paper

2. 2Another student's paper

3. 3https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?curid=572687

4. 4https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-lost-effects-of-the-fourth-amendment

Matched Text

Suspected Entry: 100% match