Criminal Justice
1 * The midterm exam will be five questions worth ten points each, for a total of fifty possible points for each exam.
2 * Students should submit approximately one page of writing in response to each question.
3 * Answer the following questions: *****************
1)- Discuss the process through which the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of due process of law eventually resulted in virtually all of the rights contained in the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights becoming applicable to not only the federal government but all of the individual states as well.
2)- Discuss the concept of expectation of privacy in the context of the 4th Amendment analysis.
3)- Compare and contrast the Cabelles and Kyllo cases and attempt to explain and rationalize their seemingly inconsistent outcomes.
4)- Discuss the objective basis necessary to support the various interactions between the police and the public (e.g., voluntary encounters, investigative stops, frisks, arrests, etc.).
5)- Discuss the various situations when the police can legally search vehicles, passengers, “containers” in vehicles, etc.
4- Grading rubric**************
1-) Writing Quality: Primarily concerns fundamentals like grammar, syntax, usage, vocabulary, and spelling, but also considers clarity of expression and logical structure. 20 points.
2-)Responsiveness: Does each response really answer the question posed? 15 points.
3-) Comprehensiveness: Are the answers to each question thorough and complete? 10 points.
4-)Sources: Are useful, credible sources used? Are all sources used clearly cited? 5 points.
ANSWER
Midterm Exam
Name
Institution, Department
Course Name: Course Number
Instructor
Date
The process through which the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of due process of law in the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights
The fourteenth amendment due process clause constrained the state’s authority from violating a person of liberty, life, and property short of the in line with the process of law (Lash, 2019). Ideally, the process focuses on the requirement of the due process on the states. The amendment which focuses on equal protection states that all states are not allowed to enforce or make any law that will breach the immunities and privileges of the citizens of the United States.
The due process clause gave limitations on the states on the control and protection of fundamental human rights. The process offers an array of constitutional rights such as those that are most controversial and cherished. The due process clause focuses on procedural protection such as hearing and notice, individual rights in the bill of rights including the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and rights to bear arms.
The due process clause focused on adopting several measures that protected the individual rights of the citizens and preventing the government from interfering with the states (Eaton, 2017). In the amendments, the federal government was prohibited from depriving the liberty, person of life, and property devoid of the law process. The procedural due process entails the concerns that the guidelines that the government needs to follow before it engages in depriving individual liberty, personal of life and property. Considerably, the due process clause can be broken down into two categories the substantive due process and procedural due process. The procedural due process is grounded on fundamental fairness principles that focus on the legal procedures that need to be followed in the state proceedings. The substantive due process has dealt with particular areas such as privacy and liberty of contract.
The Concept of Expectation of Privacy in the Context of the 4th Amendment Analysis.
Considerably, the privacy concept has come to be in some measure a representation of the fourth amendment. Understanding the link between the fourth amendment and privacy and its influences in the course of law requires an inquiry into the concept itself (Winn, 2009). Privacy entails the ability of the actor to uphold integrity. For instance, information that is not voluntarily offered or disclosed is generally obtained through a certain form of intrusion. The changing socio-cultural realities have led to the need for changes like personal autonomy.
The rights of individuals to be secure in their privacy units against unreasonable intrusions should not be violated according to the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment protects individuals from warrantless searches and seizures of objects or persons (Kerr, 2007). The fourth amendment of the U.S constitution offers the right of individuals to be secure in their papers, houses, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches.
The critical goal of this provision is to protect individual’s right to privacy as well as ensure that their freedom of unreasonable intrusion by the government. In the concept of expectation of privacy in the fourth amendment seizures and searches are top operative terms. These safeguard individuals during detentions and searches as well as prevent them from unlawfully seized items. The degree of protection available varies on the setting of detention or arrest, the situations under which the search happens and features of the searched place.
The Cabelles and Kyllo Cases and Their Inconsistent Outcomes.
Roy Caballes was stopped for speeding on an interstate highway by a trooper in Illinois. After the stop, the trooper saw an air freshener, atlas, and some outfits in the vehicle. The trooper requested go-ahead to check the car but wasn’t granted the permission to search. A drug interdiction officer then arrived at the location with a drug-sniffing dog. The officer began searching with the sniffing dog which alerted him of drugs at the trunk. Caballes was detained and sentenced for possession of drugs. The Supreme Court argued that the dog wrongly enlarged the extent of routine traffic stops into a drug search.
On the other hand, Kyllo’s case is based on doubt that there was marijuana in an individual’s residence. The U.S Department of interior agent utilized a thermal imaging tool that would probe the premises to scrutinize whether the heat that was coming from the residence was consistent with the utilization of high-intensity lamps that are needed to grow marijuana at home. The scan showed that the side of the wall of the home and roof over the garage was relatively hot as compared to the rest of the home and the residence was generally warmer as compared to the neighboring homes.
The Supreme Court resolved that gaining such evidence about the inside of a private residence that otherwise possibly would not have been traced minus physical intrusion in a lawfully protected place is an unreasonable intrusion. Surveillance at kyllo’s private residence with technology not in public use constitutes a presumptively unreasonable search.
Both cases are linked to search with the meaning of the Fourth Amendment which argues on the expectations of privacy and unreasonable intrusion. Unreasonable search entails a search by law enforcers without probable cause or search warrant which is used to prove that crime is present. In both cases, unreasonable seizure and search are unconstitutional and violates the fourth amendment. Considerably, individuals have the right to privacy according to the fourth amendment. Law enforcement agents are not allowed to conduct searches without warrants. Therefore, the 4th amendment has been violated in both cases since the expectations of privacy recognized these actions as an unreasonable intrusion.
The objective basis necessary to support the various interactions between the police and the public
Interactions between the police and the community members have formed a cornerstone for effective law enforcement strategies and operations. All officers are required to follow the guidelines and provisions of the Arrest and investigatory stops to enhance the effectiveness of the public-police contacts to include investigatory detentions, voluntary contacts, arrests, and pat-downs.
The policing practices of frisking, arresting, and searching citizens have been well guided and established by legal precedents on the necessary preconditions needed to engage in each of the interactions lawfully (Karteron, 2018). Although frisking and arresting have been routine police practices, these can only be conducted lawfully on the basis that there is reasonable suspicion that an individual leads to immediate danger to the public or officer.
The work of patrol and investigators in the history of America is linked to a majority of police work. The police and public have interacted based on patrol operations and policing strategies that require investigation of suspicious situations. Policing strategies have been used to reduce crime and uncovering crime and responding to crimes. In a case that the police have a reasonable suspicion with objective, specific and articulable facts that have been taken together, they have a well-founded suspicion that allows them to interact with the public.
Discuss the various situations when the police can legally search vehicles, passengers, “containers” in vehicles, etc.
Searches are conducted when officers are seeking evidence regarding a certain crime or contraband linked to a certain criminal activity. Some searches are linked to safety reasons such as looking for drugs and weapons that may be harmful to the public. Police officers have can legally search a vehicle when they have probable cause. Probable cause entails the legal standard of suspicion that allows the police officers the capacity to search (Murray, 2017). Considerably, for the police to reach a level of probable cause, they have to possess certain facts that lead a reasonable person to accept that there is evidence regarding a particular crime. Vehicles, containers, and passengers in vehicles can be searched even without warrants if the law enforcer searching has probable cause to believe that the vehicle has illegal items.
The police have wider powers to investigate a scene. For instance, if the police officer has been authorized by a warrant, they may search an area that has been detailed in the warrant. If the search relates to a vehicle, they are allowed to search the passengers, containers, and vehicle to ensure that they have searched the entirety of the vehicle. A container locked in the car may be searched as part of the investigation into the alleged scene. For instance, a police officer cannot simply search a vehicle only because the driver was speeding. The police officer requires additional facts such as a strong smell of alcohol or drugs or slurred speech from the driver. The police officers also need to have probable cause to guarantee that there is evidence from the locked container or passengers in the vehicle. Given such combinations, the police have probable cause to initiate a search. The automobile exception states that it is fairly established that when police offer has a probable cause to search a vehicle they can do so without having to obtain a warrant especially when the vehicle has been found in a public roadway.
References
Eaton, E. (2017). The Due Process Clause: Analyzing The Supreme Court’s Substantive Due Process Jurisprudence.
Karteron, A. (2018). When Stop and Frisk Comes Home: Policing Public and Patrolled Housing. Case W. Res. L. Rev., 69, 669.
Kerr, O. S. (2007). Four models of fourth amendment protection. Stan. L. Rev., 60, 503.
Lash, K. T. (2019). Federalism and the Original Fourteenth Amendment. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol’y, 42, 69.
Murray, H. (2017). Unreasonable Search and Seizure: The Fourth Amendment. Enslow Publishing, LLC.
Winn, P. (2009). Katz and the origins of the reasonable expectation of privacy test. McGeorge L. Rev., 40, 1.
