critical analysis of the content, law homework help

Read each paragraph and give me your opinion do you agree do you disagree with those 2 paragraphs one for each part and if you agree or disagree why or why not CJ

1.Police officers don’t need a warrant to make a search “incident to arrest.” After an arrest, officers have the right to protect themselves by searching for weapons and to protect the legal case against the suspect by searching for evidence that the suspect might try to destroy. Assuming that the officer has probable cause to make the arrest in the first place, a search of the person and the person’s surroundings following the arrest is generally valid, and any evidence uncovered is typically admissible at trial” (Bergman, n.d.). Somethings that would be considered improper would be unnecessary use of force, searching the suspects home if they were arrested somewhere else or placing evidence to help make their case.

2.Explore justification for each of the things an officer is allowed to do after an arrest without the need for a warrant. Justifications for the things an officer is allowed to do after an arrest without the need for a warrant may consist of ; if the property is abandoned, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the suspect may have hidden evidence. The officer may search the immediate control area to secure safety, seize evidence in order to prevent concealment or destruction of evidence or for a predetermined target (such as narcotics). Establish how certain actions go beyond what you would consider to be acceptable were you the arrestee. Certain actions such as, racial profiling and strip searching without probable cause, I feel goes beyond acceptance. Ex., as stated on page 195 of Criminal Procedure, 9e., officers installed a peep hole in the ceiling of a public restroom to observe what occurred in the stalls, without a warrant. They observed two people engaging in illegal sexual acts. In this case the issue of reasonable expectation of privacy is what the two arrested had. Also. i feel as though the main issue is society today in which officers go beyond what i would consider to be acceptable would be POLICE BRUTALITY. Lay out measures to ensure compliance with legal parameters when working in the criminal justice field. The first measure should be to make sure before you pull over or arrest someone, you have all the right reasons including probable cause. Second measure should be to make sue you are in compliance with all government laws. Be sure that you are not violating anyones constitutional rights and are abiding by all the rules unless you have legit “Good Faith” and reason to do so otherwise and that whatever you do will hold up in court. Make sure that you are being honest and that your intentions are for the good, after all, you are here to protect and serve, not harm or harass. Establish how courts have interpreted the parameters involved in a search after an arrest incorporating two cases as pints reference. According to Herring v. United States : Extension of the Good Faith exception to the exclusionary rule in fourth amendment cases, the supreme court, applied the “good faith” exception to bar application to the exclusionary rule, In Mincey v. Arizona (1978), the court said that a warrant must be obtained in crime scene investigations, regardless of the seriousness of the offense. The only exception to this rule is if obtaining warrant would mean that the evidence would be lost, destroyed, or removed during the time required to obtain a warrant. Also. according to the same

 
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"