Assignment Question

Overview It is important to understand your responsibilities as a criminal justice professional when engaging with citizens. This piece is broken into three parts and you must complete each part. Each part includes a text or video scenario to which you will respond by writing 1-2 pages for each scenario that examines specific information regarding the events using your knowledge of the United States Constitution. Instructions Part 1: Law Enforcement Officer Arrives at the Scene Scenario An 18-year-old high school student walks to class carrying a backpack. He is stopped by the school security guard and his backpack is searched. A loaded handgun is discovered. The school security guard takes the student to the principal’s office. The principal calls the local police. In the state where the school is located, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit and all weapons are prohibited on campus. Officer Smith arrives at the school approximately 10 minutes later. Officer Smith takes a statement from the school security guard and searches the student’s backpack. He seizes the gun and places the student under arrest. Officer Smith then asks the student if he would like to make a statement to explain why he was carrying a concealed weapon on campus. The student replies, “What weapon? That’s not my backpack and I never saw that gun before.” The student is then transported to the local jail. However, on the way to the local jail, Officer Smith asks the student again why he brought a loaded gun on campus. The student admits that it was his gun and stated that he needed it for protection. Upon arrival at the local jail, the student is booked. Six hours later, the student is interviewed by a Detective Columbo. The detective reads the student his Miranda warning and asks the student if he would like to make a statement. The student replies, “No, I want a lawyer.” Write 1-2 pages in which you: Examine the constitutional amendment or amendments that would relate to this situation. Outline the appropriate procedures you would need to follow to comply with the associated amendments to ensure admissibility of evidence. Evaluate the officer’s actions and determine whether his search, the student’s confession, and the weapon discovery were lawful and/or admissible. Provide a rationale for your opinion. Use at least two sources to support your writing. Choose sources that are credible, relevant, and appropriate. Cite each source listed on your source page at least one time Consider using Cornell Law’s LII U.S. ConstitutionLinks to an external site. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html). Note: Wikipedia and similar websites do not qualify as academic resources. Part 2: Arrest and Trial Scenario Tyler, a well-known escort service provider in his community, is suspected of the murder of an escort who worked for him. The local police meet Tyler at the airport when he arrives from a trip to Cancun. He is arrested for his suspected connection to the murder of the escort. The police do not inform Tyler of his right to remain silent or his right to counsel. They immediately begin to interrogate him. They continue to question him until he admits that he knew the prostitute and that she worked for him. He also admits that he was with her the night of the alleged murder. Tyler is transported to the local jail and booked. The prosecutor files charges of first degree murder against Tyler. Tyler does not waive his rights to a speedy trial. He asks that an attorney be appointed and demands a trial by jury. Write 1-2 pages in which you: Examine the constitutional amendment or amendments that would relate to this situation. Identify and discuss four elements of arrest. Describe the appropriate procedures to comply with Tyler’s rights to due process. Examine any consequences that might occur if his right to due process is violated. Use at least two sources to support your writing. Choose sources that are credible, relevant, and appropriate. Cite each source listed on your source page at least one time. Part 3: Correctional Officers and Rights of Inmates Hudson v. McMillianLinks to an external site. is a U.S. Supreme court case involving the excessive force resulting in a claim of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The court’s decision resulted in the five-pronged Hudson test, also known as PANAM: (P)erceived threat by correctional officers; (A)ny and all efforts to de-escalate; (N)eed for the application of force; (A)mount of force that was used and; (M)edical issues, and extent of any injuries, that are used to evaluate cases involving any use of force before trial and after conviction. The test helps the courts determine whether correctional officers’ actions were reasonable, necessary, and conducted in good faith. Watch the video scenario and take notes as you watch: CJ in Practice Constitutional Issue: Deprivation of Inmates’ RightsLinks to an external site. Write 1-2 pages in which you: Summarize the events of this scenario and the persons involved. Examine the constitutional amendments related to this situation and whether the rights of the inmates in this scenario were violated. Support your opinion. Determine whether the incidents pass the five-pronged Hudson test discussed above. Recommend how the sergeant should respond to the officer’s behavior. Support your response. Use at least two sources to support your writing. Choose sources that are credible, relevant, and appropriate. Cite each source listed on your source page at least one time.

Assignment Answer

Introduction

The criminal justice system plays a vital role in safeguarding the rights of citizens while maintaining law and order. This paper examines three distinct scenarios, each involving a unique set of circumstances, to analyze the application of constitutional amendments in ensuring that citizens’ rights are protected. We will delve into the responsibilities of law enforcement officers, the process of arrest and trial, and the rights of inmates in correctional facilities. Through the lens of the United States Constitution and relevant case law, we will evaluate the actions taken in each scenario and assess their legality and adherence to constitutional rights.

Part 1: Law Enforcement Officer Arrives at the Scene

In the first scenario, an 18-year-old high school student is caught carrying a concealed handgun on a school campus. The actions of Officer Smith in conducting the search, obtaining a confession from the student, and seizing the weapon raise important constitutional questions. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment comes into play, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment requires that searches and seizures be conducted with a warrant, issued upon probable cause (U.S. Const. amend. IV).

In this case, the search of the student’s backpack without a warrant may be considered a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, several exceptions to the warrant requirement apply, one of which is the “exigent circumstances” exception. Exigent circumstances allow law enforcement to conduct searches without a warrant when there is a risk of danger or evidence destruction. Given the presence of a loaded handgun on a school campus, Officer Smith may argue that he had reasonable cause to believe there was an immediate danger, justifying the search.

Moreover, the student’s confession on the way to the jail must be evaluated in the context of the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination (U.S. Const. amend. V). The Miranda warning, as established by the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona (1966), requires officers to inform suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney. The student initially claimed that the gun was not his, but later, while in custody, admitted ownership. Officer Smith’s decision to question the student without providing Miranda warnings could render the confession inadmissible.

Additionally, the student’s statement of needing the gun for protection highlights the complexity of the situation. It raises questions about the Second Amendment, which grants the right to bear arms, but this right is not absolute and may be restricted in certain places, such as school campuses. Therefore, Officer Smith’s arrest and the student’s subsequent transportation to jail align with state laws on concealed weapons on school grounds.

In summary, while Officer Smith may argue that he acted under exigent circumstances, the absence of a warrant and failure to provide a Miranda warning raise concerns about the legality of the search and confession. A court may need to decide whether the evidence is admissible based on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Part 2: Arrest and Trial

The second scenario involves the arrest of Tyler, a suspect in a murder case, without being informed of his Miranda rights. The Fifth Amendment plays a critical role in this scenario as it guarantees the right against self-incrimination (U.S. Const. amend. V). Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established the requirement for law enforcement officers to inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation. Failure to do so may result in the exclusion of any statements made by the suspect during questioning.

In Tyler’s case, the police did not inform him of his right to remain silent or his right to counsel. Subsequently, they began interrogating him, leading to his admission of involvement with the escort. This raises concerns about the admissibility of his statements in court. If it can be established that Tyler was in custody and subject to interrogation, the failure to provide Miranda warnings could render his statements inadmissible, as they would be considered coerced and self-incriminating.

Additionally, Tyler’s request for an attorney and a trial by jury reflects his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights (U.S. Const. amend. V, VI). The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel during criminal proceedings, while the right to a jury trial is also enshrined in this amendment. If Tyler did not waive these rights and requested an attorney and a trial by jury, the court should appoint counsel for him. Failing to respect these rights could result in a violation of due process.

In summary, the failure to inform Tyler of his Miranda rights before interrogation could jeopardize the admissibility of his statements in court. Furthermore, his requests for an attorney and a trial by jury must be honored to ensure the protection of his constitutional rights.

Part 3: Correctional Officers and Rights of Inmates

The third scenario, based on Hudson v. McMillian, centers on the excessive use of force against inmates and whether it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. VIII). The Eighth Amendment protects inmates from cruel and unusual punishment, and the courts have developed the Hudson test to assess cases involving the use of force against inmates.

The Hudson test consists of five prongs: perceived threat by correctional officers, efforts to de-escalate the situation, the need for the application of force, the amount of force used, and the medical issues and extent of injuries. In the video scenario, it is evident that the inmate was subjected to excessive force, raising concerns about the violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Correctional officers have a duty to use force only when it is necessary and reasonable.

The constitutional amendments related to this situation are the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which extends the protection of due process to inmates. The excessive use of force can be deemed a violation of these amendments, as it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and fails to provide inmates with due process.

In response to the correctional officer’s behavior, it is essential for the sergeant to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident, ensuring that the inmate’s rights were not violated. If the use of excessive force is confirmed, appropriate disciplinary measures should be taken against the officers involved. The constitutional rights of inmates must be respected, and correctional facilities have a duty to maintain their safety and well-being while upholding the principles of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Conclusion

In the criminal justice system, it is imperative to balance law enforcement’s duty to maintain order with the protection of citizens’ constitutional rights. In each of the three scenarios presented, constitutional amendments played a significant role in determining the legality of actions taken by law enforcement officers and correctional staff. Adherence to these amendments, such as the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, ensures that citizens’ rights are safeguarded at every stage of the criminal justice process.

As the scenarios demonstrate, the U.S. Constitution serves as a cornerstone for guiding the actions of law enforcement professionals and correctional officers, ensuring that citizens’ rights are upheld. It is crucial for these professionals to be well-versed in constitutional law, and for the criminal justice system to provide checks and balances that hold individuals accountable for any violations of citizens’ rights.

Through continuous education and training, law enforcement professionals can better navigate complex scenarios, make informed decisions, and protect citizens’ rights while maintaining public safety. In this way, the criminal justice system can strike the delicate balance between upholding the law and respecting the constitutional rights of citizens.