The Rights of Citizens
Please follow the guidelines that are attached. Please use at least 7 credible sources as a reference. The last scenario part 3 has a video to watch. I included the website address in case it does not open. If you still have problems opening it please let me know. Please include on the reference page the author’s first and last name and website address if it came from the internet. If you have any questions feel free to let me know. I have always written my own research papers. Please do your best I am used to getting an A on my papers.
The Rights of Citizens
Part I: Law Enforcement Officer Arrives at the Scene Scenario
In this scenario, the related constitutional amendments include the second, the fourth and the fifth constitutional amendments. The second amendment support the right to have firearms and it is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense. The amendment forbids the carrying of firearms in sensitive areas such as government buildings and schools. The fourth amendment states that it is a constitutional right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. It should not be violated unless with issuance of a warrant or establishing probable cause. This prohibits security personnel and police from searching and seizing belongings and homes without a warrant or probable cause. The fifth amendment holds that the law enforcement officer must give the criminal suspect a given set of warnings before interrogation.
The appropriate procedures of conducting searches and seizures, there must be a clear indication of reasonable requirement of probable cause. The law enforcement officer must demonstrate the higher degree of certainty with no reasonable doubt about the situation and facts. The law enforcement must demonstrate reasonable suspicion which is based on articulable facts in the circumstances surrounding the incident. officers need a warrant to conduct a search on a person and property. An officer is also allowed to conduct search without a warrant, when searching the person for evidence and weapons to make arrest valid. For the protection of premises, security guards perform investigatory detention which requires the guards and law enforcement officer to have reasonable suspicion and incorporation of articulable facts. The search in this case only involves the person and the items searched are weapons. The protection of premises requires reasonable suspicion that the detainee is armed and dangerous.
Officer Smith, takes a statement from the security guard and search the backpack of the student. According to the second amendment and the school rules, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon without permission. Therefore, officer conduct is justifiable before the law. The officer asks the student if he would like to make a statement for carrying a concealed weapon in campus. From the statement of the security guard, the officer has reasonable suspicion that merits the search of the backpack and the seizure of the gun. These form parts of evidence enough to justify an arrest.
The only admissible evidence is the gun seized from the backpack. The arresting officer did not give the Miranda warning, therefore the confession of the student during transit is off the record and not part for the statement. The admissibility of the confession cannot be used as evidence for court proceedings. The statement of the student in the records is he did not know about the weapon in his backpack and that the gun did not belong to him. It is illegal to carry and keep a weapon in sensitive places like the school. The right is only applicable at home where it should be used during situations of self-defense. Keeping a loaded gun in a backpack in school is a crime which justify the arrest. The defendant is allowed to make statements when notified. Any records and confessions given off the records is not admissible in a court.
My opinion is the law enforcement officer should have given the student the Miranda warning during the arrest to give an opportunity to use anything the student say as evidence before the court. The law enforcement officer cannot use the confession of the student against his own words which were made besides the official statement.
References
Dahlem, C. H., King, L., Anderson, G., Marr, A., Waddell, J. E., & Scalera, M. (2017). Beyond rescue: Implementation and Assessment of revised naloxone training for law enforcement officers. Public Health Nursing, 34(6), 516-521.
Chase, J., Du, J., Fu, N., Le, T. V., & Lau, H. C. (2017). Law enforcement resource optimization with response time guarantees. In 2017 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI) (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
Part II: Arrest and Trial Scenario
The fourth, fifth and sixth amendments are the constitutional amendments that would relate to the situation of Tyler. Tyler can highlight the revocation of his right to be secure in person against unreasonable searches and seizure. The Fourth amendment exists to prevent the government from detention of citizen without probable cause or the issuance of a warrant. The fourth amendment is significant as any evidence collected in its violation is inadmissible in court under the exclusionary rule. The fifth amendment protects the accused from the exploitation by the government. The law enforcement officers must clearly give a set of warnings before questioning and interrogation. These rights of the suspect are directly related to the fifth amendment clause of self-incrimination. The sixth amendment indicate the accused has a right to speedy and public trial for their criminal prosecutions. The amendment also focus on guarantee the accused to receiving fair and accurate criminal proceedings.
There are four elements of arrest which include the intent to arrest, the authority to arrest, subjection to arrest and understanding by the person that an arrest has occurred. The intention to arrest should be communicated by the officer through verbal means and actions. The most important aspect is showing that an arrest will happen. The authority of arresting officers to arrest suspects and put them to custody is derived from the state laws. The law enforcement officers are given the authority to arrest criminals when they commit a crime.
Subjection to arrest occurs when a suspect submits to the arresting officer willingly which is also called constructive seizure. An actual seizure involves forceful arrest with the use of firearms and hands to handle the suspect. The last element of an arrest is that the arrestee must understand the reason for being arrested. The arresting officer has a duty to state the reason of the arrest to the suspect during the time of arrest. The person may not understand the reason of arrest in the situations they are intoxicated, unconscious and insane.
The appropriate procedures that comply with the rights of Tyler would involve giving the reason for arrest for the understanding of Tyler. By the clause of Fifth amendment, the police officer must give a set of warning which involve the Miranda warning that holds that the suspect has the right to remain silent and anything they say from that point can and will be used in a court. The intention of arrest must also be shown to Tyler in the airport with simply word like “You are under arrest”. Tyler is entitled to a speedy and public trial which he does not receive. His rights are violated as the attorney makes an appointment for a trial by jury.
The potential consequence of the violation of due process will lead to Tyler being acquitted for the violation of his rights by the law enforcement office. The violation of the due process also makes all evidence collected after the arrest inadmissible in the court proceedings. The procedure of arrest and interrogation used on the case of Tyler is illegal and this renders the whole process and the detainment of the accused null and void. The evidence given by Tyler in terms of confession cannot be used for his prosecution because Tyler was not given the necessary set of warning during arrest.
References
Nicolae, G. O. (2016). The Arrest Procedure in Accordance with the Demands of the Convention. LESIJ-Lex ET Scientia International Journal, 23(1), 159-165.
Dharmapala, D., Garoupa, N., & McAdams, R. H. (2016). Punitive police? Agency costs, law enforcement, and criminal procedure. The Journal of Legal Studies, 45(1), 105-141.
Part III: Correctional Officers and Rights of Inmates
The scenario involves Officer Torres who denies the inmate their right to food. The officer argues that there will be no breakfast. The officer denies one of the intimate the right to attend church for no particular reason. From the video, Officer Torres violate the first and eight constitutional amendment entitled to the inmates. The inmates are protected by the prohibition of the eighth amendment that shields the inmates against excessive cruelty and unusual punishment.
The first amendment and the eighth amendment are the related constitutional amendments in the scenario. The court require the correctional officers to act reasonably, necessarily and in good faith. The court analyses situations with correctional officers and right of inmates by considering the perceived threat by correctional officers, the need for application of force, the any and all effort made to deescalate, the amount of force use on the inmates and the medical issues and extent of injuries. These are the considerations made in the Assessment of cases that involve the use of force on inmates.
The inmate in correction institutions are not entitled to the first amendment rights. The freedom of speech and the other basic freedoms are restricted on the prisoners so that the correction institution can perform its intended purpose. Therefore, it is not necessarily the right of the inmate to attend church. This is due to the reduction of most of the basic freedoms of a citizen with the aim of achieving rehabilitation and correction of behaviors. The inmates lose their right to privacy in prison and therefore are not protected from warrantless searches. The rights that they retain involve Due Process rights and should not be intentionally deprived of their property in prison.
The eighth amendment in the scenario is violated, in the situation where Officer Torres denies the inmates the right to have meals. This is termed by the eighth amendment as unreasonable use of force. According to the five-pronged Hudson test, the incident of denying the inmates food does not pass the test. The perceived threat posed by the correctional officers is great in the situation of the inmates. There is no need to apply that force as applied by officer Torres. The incident can cause medical issue when some of the inmates won’t survive without taking their meals.
The sergeant of the correctional institution should explain to officer Torres and other correctional officer the rights of the inmates. The response to the officer should reprimand the behavior on the inmates and instill discipline focused on achieving the goal of correction and rehabilitation.
References
Abdel-Salam, S., & Sunde, H. M. (2018). Enhancing the Role of Correctional Officers in American Prisons: Lessons Learned from Norway. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 31(1), 67-74.
Lambert, E. G., Paoline III, E. A., & Hogan, N. L. (2020). The Effects of Inmate Medical Issues on Correctional Staff Job Involvement and Organizational Commitment. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 1078345819897609.
