Arrests and Searches, law assignment help

There are 3 parts to this assignment each part needs a small paragraph discussing about each assignment.)
1. Arrests and Searches CJ 3 D
Instructions
In your main post:IN THE UNITED STATE
Explore justifications for each of the things an officer is allowed to do after an arrest without the need for a warrant.
Establish how certain actions go beyond what you would consider to be acceptable were you the arrestee.
Lay out measures to ensure compliance with legal parameters when working in the criminal justice field.
Establish how courts have interpreted the parameters involved in a search after an arrest, incorporating two cases as points of reference.
2. Canine SearchesCJ 4 D
Introduction
Certain circumstances must exist for a search to be constitutional. For example, contemporaneous searches must occur at the time as, or very close in time and place to, the arrest. Searches citing exigent circumstances may involve some kind of an emergency that makes getting a search warrant impractical, useless, dangerous, or unnecessary. There is generally a reasonable expectation of privacy that exists when a person exhibits an actual expectation of privacy, and the expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. That aside, the U.S. Supreme Court held in United States v. Place, that there is no search within the meaning of the 4th Amendment if police use narcotics detection dogs to smell closed containers for drugs, as long as police are on the premises legally.
Instructions
Consider that there is no need for a search warrant or for probable cause to conduct dog sniffs.
In your main post:
Express your position on the Court’s decision in United States v. Place, using an additional case to support your opinion.
Describe the constitutional requirements that apply, or do not apply, in canine searches.
Differentiate between the constitutionality of canine searches versus other searches that require probable cause.
Reference
United States v. Place, (81-1617) 462 US 696 (1983).
3.Student Drug Testing CJ 4 D
Drug testing elementary and high school students taking part in athletics and other school programs is valid. In the case Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995), the Court upheld random drug testing of high school athletes. In the subsequent case Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County et al. v. Earls (2002), the Court extended that ruling to middle and high school students participating in any extracurricular activity.
Instructions
Locate a case dealing with random drug testing of elementary or high school students.
In your main post:
Explore the Court’s reasoning that drug testing is a minimal intrusion to students.
Assess whether the interests of the government in this line of cases are important enough to override the individual privacy protection.
Articulate whether you, as a criminal justice professional, believe these rulings should also extend to college students.
Discussion Objectives
The competencies addressed in this discussion are supported by discussion objectives, as follows:
Competency 1: Articulate how the rules of criminal procedure apply to a criminal justice practitioner.
Assess whether government interests are important enough to override individual privacy protections.
Articulate whether elementary and high school search rulings should apply to college students.
Competency 3: Apply the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments in a criminal justice context.
Explore the Court’s reasoning that drug testing is a minimal intrusion to students.
References
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, (94-590), 515 US 646 (1995).
Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County et al. v. Earls, (01-332) 536 US 822 (2002).