CJ 2500 mod 5 PAPER
I NEED REVISED
Final Paper – 200 points
A final paper a minimum of 1000 words will be required. 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; etc. 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 valid source for a scholarly paper due to a lack of verified information. Your topic must be approved prior to completion of paper. Topics will be due for approval by week #2. You are to submit me your choice of topics by the end of week #2.
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:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/
Love 1
SEARCH AND SEIZURE 2
Search and Seizure
Tonya Bell
Prof. Tom Strausborger
Indiana Institute of Technology
search and seizure
Likely the most timely case on search and seizure dates to seventeen sixty when the master of England gave warrants to have some pamphleteer’s homes to be scoured and denied of their books and papers. These pamphleteers used to go out flyers that mocked the master and his pastors to general society and when the ruler found, he gave the warrants. In any case, in spite of the way that the fourth amendment was not fruitful yet, the pamphleteers combat back and said that searches took after a “singular attack”.
A serious extended period of time later the fourth amendment the building up fathers of the United States of America drafted the fourth amendment to the constitution since they didn’t agree with the ruler’s ‘general warrants’. Any person who had the general warrant could go into any house or building and search or clutch denied stock. Additionally, government authorities could essentially get in private places without deciding why they are there, where they will look, and what they’re scanning for.
The fourth amendment is a bit of the Bill of Rights which was added to the United States of America constitution and it wound up reasonable as from fifteenth December 1791. The amendment scrutinizes; “The benefit of the people to be secure in their kin, houses, papers, and effects, against ludicrous hunts and seizures, won’t be dismissed, and no warrants will issue, yet upon sensible legitimization, reinforced by Oath or confirmation, and particularly delineating the spot to be looked, and the individuals or things to be seized (U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment).
In spite of the way that the fourth amendment is critical since it ensures people of prosperity and security in their own one of a kind homes, it has its inadequacies. There have been conversations concerning it since it was realized considering the way that not in the least like during the 1700s where presents were seeing as a pernicious worth giving a court order for, there are progressively difficult issues these days. Things, for instance, explosives, drugs, illegal firearms, kid sensual diversion, and missing people among others are a peril and loosening up the fourth amendment to people related with these activities is questionable. Exactly 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 fourth amendment. This paper will go into experiences in regards to the fourth amendment and its parts and discussion about if this remedy is so far strong and incredible or whether it has been crippled after some time.
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, if by any chance the court picks that the issues present before it is out of the fourth amendment, the individual will be presented to look and seizure. As per the fourth amendment, a pursuit is said to have happened when a pro or laborer of the organization infringes a person’s wise desire for security. Before long, visual body sadness and strip look through that consolidate butt-driven or genital assessments, electronic perception, and a canine sniff involve reasonable quests under the fourth amendment if and when they are maintained by a dependable explanation and are finished in an ordinary manner (Kim, 2017).
Of course, 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 have happened when a person’s possessory eagerness for a property has been intruded with and an individual is said to have been taken advantage of if their lucky break has been infringed by authorities of the law (Kim, 2017). To lawfully clutch an individual or a property authority of the law are required to have warrants. In any case, cops 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.
Stop and search is the other segment of the fourth amendment and basically like seizures and searches, an authority of the law must have a court order yet in case there is sensible defense like if the cop acknowledges that a wrongdoing is happening or that an individual might be equipped the person being referred to can lead a stop and search warrantless. As indicated by the substance, a warrant and sensible defense are various segments in the change, and they expect a significant activity in search and seizure as it has been discussed previously. A warrant is a created endorsement from an official court that offers an authority the go-ahead to look or seize or stop and search (Swanson, Chamelin, Territo, and Taylor, 2006). A warrant states why, where, and things to be seized. Sensible defense of course is the reason or sense behind a warrant being given.
Finally, there is the exclusionary rule which is a part that was put I the correction to ensure that cops submit to it. The standard communicates that if any confirmation is gained unlawfully or doesn’t keep up the fourth amendment, it is ruined and can’t be used in a court. For instance, in Map v. Ohio the Supreme Court concluded that the choice in Wolf v. Colorado was broken since the court surrendered that it got evidence illegitimately. Stop and search, edges and motivations behind area, blockades with reasonable and authentic explanation, and where it is shown that there are no other effective techniques material are exclusions of the fourth amendment (Swanson, Chamelin, Territo, and Taylor, 2006).
Surely, even with all of these segments, for instance, the exclusionary rule in the fourth amendment, the affirmation of occupants and their property is feeble or rather it has rotted after some time. The essential explanation as for why this is to the point that there is extended surveillance development nowadays. There has been fuss that these observation progressions have ended up being exceptionally covert and nosy and, along these lines, the fourth amendment should be changed.
The police needn’t waste time with a warrant to use robots to investigate your patio and they also needn’t mess with a warrant to follow one’s open activities for a few days. With all the advancement open, police make use devices, for instance, stingrays to screen an expected territory (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, what is keeping the police from using it and get correspondence information of legit people? Furthermore, just as this isn’t adequate, if the organization was to decide to present GPS trackers in people’s PCs or vehicles and use them to keep an eye out for its locals, it wouldn’t break the fourth amendment (Feeney, 2017).
In as much as the guidelines used in disentangling the fourth amendment have progressed after some time, something which understood the improvement of the exclusionary, the Miranda forewarning, and the warrant need (which holds that searches are on a very basic level absurd in case they’re coordinated without before underwriting from an adjudicator or official) even more despite everything ought to be done. New parts ought to be familiar in the change with ensure that occupants and their properties are totally made sure about.
Works Cited
Feeney, M. (2017). How the Fourth Amendment Can Keep Up with Modern Surveillance. The Weekly Standard. Recovered from https://www.weeklystandard.com/matthew-feeney/how-the-fourth-amendment-can-stay aware of present-day observation
Kim, J. (2017). Fourth Amendment. Legitimate Information Institute. Recovered from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment
Swanson, C., Chamelin, C., Territo, L., and Taylor, R. (2006). Criminal Investigation. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment. Legitimate Information Institute. Recovered from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
