The article discussed how several different countries view the "exclusionary rule". Specifically, relating to an unreasonable search of a Canadian vehicle containing 77 pounds of methamphetamine. The article further discussed that the Canadian trial judge and appellate court refused to exclude the evidence; and that had this police misconduct taken place in the United States the evidence would be inadmissable under our legal system. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us/19exclude.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1) .
For example, the article discusses how Canadian Judges decide what evidence is admissible in regards to police misconduct. The article discussed that if the offenders were here in the United States the evidence would have been suppressed under the exclusionary rule due to an unlawful search. According to the article "[t]he United States is the only country to take the position that some police misconduct must automatically result in the suppression of physical evidence. The rule applies whether the misconduct is slight or serious, and without regard to the gravity of the crime or the power of the evidence." (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us/19exclude.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1).
Yes, we agree with Justice Breyer’s statement that the exclusion of evidence is a deterrent to police misconduct. In my opinion, it serves as a "checks and balances", which we believe is what our system of justice based upon. In our opinion the exclusionary rule is one of our most important rights as United States citizens. It is the Fourth Amendment, it protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. It makes police accountable for their actions and makes them uphold the Constitution.
Example of a Warrentless Search:
The type of warrantless arrest that was in the article for South Dakota was ‘Search Based on Plain View’. There was no warrant issued for the two comedians, Scot A. Shields Jr. and Michael J. Corning, in this article because the drug paraphernalia, marijuana and psilocybin mushrooms, were seen in a bag of trail mix during a traffic stop. The outcome of this case has yet to be determined but if the two are convicted they will receive a maximum prison sentence of 10 years and a $20,000 fine. Each man is charged with possession of two ounces or less of marijuana, a Class one misdemeanor, punishable by law and up to one year in a prison along with a $2000 fine. Shields has also been charged with a Class 2 misdemeanor for failing to yield to an emergency vehicle. Magistrate Judge Shawn Pahlke set bail at $2500 for each man.
‘No humor seen in comedians’ drug arrest’
Article at: http://tinyurl.com/yhgmn54
Purpose of The Miranda Warning:
The purpose of the Miranda warning is to protect criminal defendants during police interrogations and allowing them to practice their rights. In the book, Introduction to Criminal Justice by Larry, J. Siegel (pg. 339) it states that a Miranda warning is, “the requirement that when a person is custodial interrogated police inform the individual of the rights to remain silent, the consequences of failing to remain silent, and the constitutional right to counsel. There are possibilities that allow police to use illegally obtained statements without giving a Miranda warning.
One of them includes a voluntary statement given in the absence of a Miranda warning. This can be used to obtain evidence that can be used at trial. For example if a husband murdered his wife, and while the police were searching the house, the husband confessed that he killed his wife, that statement could be used in trail. At no time was the husband under interrogation, or asked to confess, he did it on his own voluntary will. Another possibility to admit illegally obtained statements deals with statements made by the mentally impaired. Although the Miranda warnings protect the statements made by those mentally impaired, certain ages, and language barriers, if the person who is mentally impaired is able to show some kind of understanding of the Miranda rights, and if the police acted properly, then the statement is valid. For example if a teenager who is mentally impaired robs a liquor store, and tells the police he did it, then if the police were to take him aside and explained his Miranda rights, and he were to nod yes then the statement would be valid. This is can be proven because he confirmed that he knew his rights, and the police acted appropriately to the situation.
A final possibility deals when a suspect is questioned without his Miranda rights when the public safety is at stake. If a person was to rob a grocery store, and while robbing the store, hid their weapon, the police could question were they hid the weapon, and have that statement be valid in court. The reason for its validity is because that weapon can be a public hazard to a person, For example if a child were to find that weapon and use it, that would cause major public damages. This exception is called the public safety doctrine.
Citations:
Citation for image: Image retrived from teh World Wide Web at: www.thebillablehour.com on October 20, 2009
Citation for; New York Times Article, "U.S. Is Alone in Rejecting All if Police Err" Summary and Response:
Liptak, A (2008 July) "U.S. Is Alone in Rejecting All if Police Err" The New York Times Retrived from the World Wide Web on October, 20 2009 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us/19exclude.html
Citation for; Example of a Warrentless Search:
Journal Staff (2009 October) "No humor seen in comedians' drug arrest" Rapid City Journal Retrived from the World Wide Web on October, 20 2009 from: http://tinyurl.com/yhgmn54
Citation for; Purpose of The Miranda Warning:
Siegel, J. L. (2009) Introduction to Criminal Justice retrived from pages 339-341 on October 20, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment