Criminal Justice Discussion Questions
“Lineups and other Means of Pretrial Identification”
Three major issues that can be identified
The first major issue that can be identified from the article among the three issues is that an individual’s memory may be jarred by activities or things that did not occur, relating to events that frighten them; hence they did not view these events taking place. An example of such like event includes accidents.
The second issue that can be easily identified from the article is that a person’s memory can be interrupted by false statements or claims made by others. These false statements are majorly witnesses or occur during questioning by the relevant investigative bodies.
The last issue that could also be easily identified from the article is that a person may be falsely accused of a crime he or she never committed. Thus mistaken or false accusations of innocent people are mostly witnessed if the offender and the falsely accused are physically indistinguishable or portray similar characters (Fisher & Tversky, (1991)).
Three situations where Miranda warnings are unnecessary
The first circumstance where the Miranda warnings are unnecessary is an incident where a suspect involved in shoplifting theft is detained or taken to custody by the security forces. This warning since security officers at the crime scene is not legal law enforcers.
The second circumstance where I feel Miranda warnings are very unnecessary are arrests imposed by the police to innocent people whom they encounter along the way. These arrests do not make any sense because stopping someone and questioning them without any valid reason are against the Criminal laws (Fisher & Tversky, (1991)).
Lastly, a situation that can be easily identified that does not warrant the Miranda warnings is when questioning someone but majorly focusing on personal details like date of birth and personal address. Here the Miranda warnings are unnecessary since the questions are not in an interrogative manner that deserves the warnings.
“Cell phones and the fourth Amendment.”
The Supreme Court based its reasoning on various provisions but mainly relied on protections offered by the 4th amendment. The fourth amendment provision states that any search conducted without any valid warrant is termed illegal, and the Carpenter’s search was termed as an unlawful by this apex court since the case was anywhere linked or connected to the exigent circumstances. In this case, there existed no need or urgency because law enforcers had all the time to go to the criminal justice courts and get a warrant after attaining the probable cause requirements, which was possible (O’Rourke, 2018).
The practice of obtaining the location of the cellphone records is considered a thing that violates an individual’s privacy rights; hence it demands the government to look for or d=seek the warrant first from the court before pursuing the act. Besides the fact that there exists numerous exceptions in the fourth amendment, the court did not apply the exceptions in its verdict because the case was not falling under the exceptions as provided by this section. It found that cell-site records could have been appropriate to be used as evidence if only they were supported by a court warrant.
The critical analysis of the third-party doctrine is seen to have a closer connection to this particular case, hence as per the apex court’s verdict, the government was left with no other chance but to seek or get the court warrant.
I tend to agree with the Supreme Court’s reasoning. This is because as the aforementioned arguments depict, the court perfectly applied the fourth amendment’s protections.
“Immunity”
- As the state jurist presides over the case, I will make sure that the laws are adhered to. Due process is followed as a way of providing justice fairly to all people, not basing focus on their status in the community or society.
- As the trial judge, I would apply the provisions provided by the Fifth Amendment, which offers protection to interference from the federal government’s actions and also apply the fourteenth amendment, which blocks the state government interference. Since the accused is a state governor, I will institute a gag order that regulates the sharing of information to the general public to ensure a reduced reversal judgment by the American apex court.
“Legal liability.”
Yes, Officer Harris is liable under the two laws. The officer is found liable under the Federal laws of Section 1983 mainly because he failed to warrant arrest to the suspect, who further caused severe injuries to his daughter and wife. This Section 1983 provision asserts that any wrongdoer or offender qualifies as a state representative; under this circumstance, Kansas, when turning down the victim’s or offender’s civil rights. Under this case, Officer Harries stands for or represents Kansas as the relevant law enforcer agent who is o ligated to assist the government of the state in restraining the offender, Frank, from being anywhere near his daughter and wife. His refusal to conduct his prescribed chore makes him directly liable for the violation of the “Kansas state tort law” provisions, together with the Section 1983 provisions which serve as federal statutes (Harris v. Evans, 795 F. Supp. 1060 (D. Kan. 1992), 1992).
“Electronic Surveillance”
This particular case involved the U.S government vs. Wesam El-Hanafi & Sabirhan Jasanoff. The aforementioned men were found guilty of offering money in performing the NYSE surveillance as per the directions of a very senior terrorist person who had plans to raid the NYSE. Fortunately enough, the U.S electronic surveillance through intelligence became aware of the plans and employed security forced to thwart the plans. The U.S security personnel arrested the suspects and took them to court where they were convicted for the aforementioned crime.
I support the opinion that electronic surveillance should be used in the U.S without the court orders in terrorist suspected cases since they have helped much in stopping all the terrorist threats. Additionally, this device has also assisted much in preventing some plots hence enhancing safety from these unwarranted attacks.
References
Fisher, G., & Tversky, B. ((1991)). The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony. STANFORD JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES, 1(1), 25-30.
Harris v. Evans, 795 F. Supp. 1060 (D. Kan. 1992), 795 F (United States District Court, D. Kansas. May 1, 1992).
O’Rourke, A. (2018). SCOTUS Issues Landmark Decision on Cell Phone Location Information with Major Implications for Fourth Amendment Privacy. Internet Law & Cyber-Security.