Although the examination of the exclusionary rule may constitute deterrence for law enforcement, the rule still may be considered constitution although its existence (Zalman, M. (2011)). Rationale and Purpose of the Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule is separated into three parts. The first part needs an item to be physically collected as evidence. The second part is that the item of evidence has been collected by a governmental officer or a person temporary acting in their behalf, for example; confidential informants. Confidential Informants are told to do acts or buy thing that may be illegal, but they are doing it on behalf of the government (Zalman, M. (2011)).
Justification and excuse will be described as well as the outcome of each case. Types of Defense A defense consists of evidence and arguments offered by a defendant and his or her attorney to show why a person should not be held liable for a criminal charge. There are two types of defenses, factual and legal. Factual defense is when an individual insist he or she did not do it. Legal defenses can have a signification effect on disposition of the case.
→Court said examiner does not act as counsel, but as fact-finder. →Court says P has due process rights; didn’t USE subpoena power to cross examine witness. **Lesson is due process is really only about opportunity to participate. →Differed from Wong case because it was NOT an adversarial proceeding; fact finding body not dealing with adversarial claims, so examiner roles were not in conflict. →**take home: If you want to make a due process claim, need to make the argument that it is an adversarial proceeding wherein prosecutorial and judicial roles are being conflated.
In the case of Bordenkircher v. Hayes (1978), the court stated, “so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion.” Although there are many factors that come into play when a prosecutor is considering dismissing a case, the most prominent issues are state and federal resources, time, and investigative teams. When there is an insufficient amount of resources and time, the accused may be more subject to leniency from the prosecutors. Moreover, the counter argument for lenient behavior is that because prosecutors are not following through and charging certain cases, then they are not fully executing the law. Additionally, many people believe there is a strong possibility that some prosecutors will abuse their discretion privileges (Slobogin, p548). In the federal courts, prosecutors also have the discretion to join charges.
Therefore the constitutional law does not generally pertain to private security. Though the law could if a private security officer: acts as an agent for public officers; obtains evidence as an agent for public officers to use in prosecution; acts with deputized police powers; is employed by a public authority (Private Security Advisory Council, 1976, p. 3-4). Restraints for private security officers would be Criminal law; a social harn to which the offender is answerable to society not an individual and is punishable by law (Private Security Advisory Council, 1976, p. 4). The criminal law is the deterrent because it is assumed the law in known. Seeing the outer limits on the behavior of private security officers can show criminal instead of watching the officer on a day by day report (Private Security Advisory Council, 1976, p.4).
After that, if need be, the case is brought to prosecution. If the prosecution takes that case, then the case is put on trial. This is important because it shows just what the judicial part of government and the court part of the criminal justice system does, and why it is important. So the court systems job is to interpret the law and bring justice. The dual court system is a system in that there are state courts and federal courts.
Evidence seized by private parties is not excluded from trial if the search was not in the direction of law enforcement officers. If a criminal defendant testifies in his or her own defense, illegally seized evidence may be used to impeach the defendant’s testimony. Evidence seized in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights may be used in Grand Jury proceedings and civil proceedings. In a grand jury proceeding, illegally seized evidence may not be used if it was obtained in violation of the federal government. In the case of United States v. Herring, the officer arrested the defendant without a proper arrest warrant.
Justification and excuse both play an interesting role in the criminal justice field. Justification is a legal defense used when a defendant will admit to the crime committed, but will also claim that the act was necessary and justified, to avoid something that would be worse than the initial act in question (Schmalleger, Hall, & Dolatowski, 2009). Excuse differs because it is a legal defense that the defendant will state that some sort of personal circumstance or condition was occurring during the act, was that in nature that she or he should not be held liable for that act (Schmalleger, Hall, & Dolatowski, 2009). In turn, justification is more of physical act, and excuse is more of the status or “mental capacity” of the individual that is committing the crime (Schmalleger, Hall, & Dolatowski, 2009). Commonwealth v. Lorena Bobbitt In the case Commonwealth v. Lorena Bobbitt, Lorena on June 23, 1993 took a twelve inch knife and severed the penis of her husband John Bobbitt.
& Dolatowski, J.J., 2010). SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW There are several sources of criminal law; the highest form of law being the Constitution. The constitution “guards personal liberties by restricting undue government interference.” (Schmalleger, F., Hall, D.E. & Dolatowski, J.J., 2010). In addition to the
According to Larry Greenemeier, a recent court case, Carpenter V. United States "specifically pits the privacy of information that wireless devices share with their service providers-the towers or " cell sites" devices connect to, the phone numbers they call and answer, and the time and length of those calls-against law enforcement's authority to retrieve that data without a warrant." However, the FBI issued court orders under the 1986 SCA in order to compel carriers to turn that information over to the FBI. This would be acceptable despite the fact that a warrant requires more reasoning to receive. If they felt strongly enough that they had reason to obtain certain information, they should have to convince a judge to see the situation from the same point of view. “ Without a warrant, but with the SCA court order in hand-the FBI compelled MetroPCS to provide about four months of location records for a smartphone owned by suspect Timothy Ivory Carpenter.” Based off of the information the authorities had previously, it would not have been hard to convince a judge to issue them a warrant.