Assignment 1: Procedural Law And The Bill Of Rights D 727315

Assignment 1 Procedural Law And The Bill Of Rightsdue Week 4 And Wort

The Bill of Rights finds its roots in documents such as the British Magna Carta of 1215 AD. It was one of the first documents that provided the common man independence from a monarch. It did imply that the federal government’s law dominated all others; however, it gave each state control of any laws outside of those reserved to the federal government. The Bill of Rights acts as a blueprint that every individual state uses to protect the rights of individual citizens. In this assignment, you will utilize the various concepts found in the Bill of Rights to provide the foundation of the various sections of the question.

Write a four to six (4-6) page paper in which you: Compare and contrast two (2) of the sources of rights and fundamental principles found in the United States’ legal system as outlined by the text. Critically analyze and discuss two (2) steps of the criminal justice process from arrest to imprisonment. Identify and discuss the particular amendment related to arrest, search and seizures. Compare and contrast the concepts of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. In your own words, explain how they are similar or different.

Examine and discuss the two (2) examples in which the exclusionary rule may not apply. Identify and discuss one (1) contemporary issue or case law related to the use of force. Use at least four (4) quality references. Note: Wikipedia and other Websites do not qualify as academic resources. Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements: Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format.

Paper For Above instruction

The Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791 as part of the U.S. Constitution, embodies fundamental rights and principles that underpin the American legal system. Among its core sources of rights are the principles derived from natural law and the constitutional guarantees explicitly enumerated within the Bill of Rights itself. These sources serve as foundational pillars, shaping the rights of individuals and guiding the judicial interpretation of legal protections. Comparing these, natural law offers an overarching moral framework based on inherent human rights, suggesting that certain rights are universal and immutable, regardless of enacted statutes. Conversely, constitutional guarantees are concrete legal stipulations that specify particular protections, such as freedom of speech or the right to a fair trial, which are enforceable by courts (Tucker, 2020). Both serve to protect individual liberties but differ in their origins—natural law being more philosophically rooted, and constitutional protections being codified legal rights.

In the criminal justice process, two critical steps are arrest and trial. Arrest involves the detention of an individual suspected of criminal activity, typically based on probable cause that links the individual to a crime. Probable cause, a standard derived from the Fourth Amendment, requires reasonable belief that a person has committed or is committing an offense (U.S. Const. amend. IV). The trial follows, where the accused is formally charged, and their guilt is determined through judicial proceedings. During this stage, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a fair trial, including legal representation and an impartial jury. Both steps are essential; arrest initiates the process based on suspicion, while the trial seeks to establish guilt or innocence through evidentiary procedures.

The Fourth Amendment specifically protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. It ensures that warrants, supported by probable cause, are generally required for searches. Probable cause refers to a reasonable belief that a crime has been or is being committed, supported by facts or evidence. Reasonable suspicion, however, is a lower standard, requiring only a particularized and articulable suspicion that an individual is involved in criminal activity, which justifies brief stops and limited searches (LaFave, 2020). While probable cause necessitates a higher level of suspicion to justify arrests and searches, reasonable suspicion is sufficient for stop-and-frisk procedures. The key difference is the threshold: probable cause is more substantial and specific, whereas reasonable suspicion is more tentative, often used for investigatory stops.

The exclusionary rule prevents the use of illegally obtained evidence in court, safeguarding constitutional rights. Nevertheless, exceptions exist where the rule may not apply. One example is the independent source doctrine, where evidence initially gathered unlawfully can be admitted if later obtained independently through lawful means. Another is the inevitable discovery rule, which allows evidence to be admitted if it would have been discovered lawfully eventually, despite initial illegality (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961). These exceptions uphold fairness and practicality, balancing individual rights against the needs of justice.

Contemporary issues surrounding the use of force involve complex legal and ethical considerations. One prominent case is the killing of George Floyd in 2020, which sparked nationwide protests and led to significant legal debates about police conduct and the standards for deadly force. Courts analyze whether officers’ use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, guided by the Fourth Amendment and the decision in Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386, 1989), which established the "objective reasonableness" standard. Recent legislation and policy reforms, such as body-worn cameras and de-escalation training, aim to address these issues and enhance accountability within law enforcement (Kahn et al., 2021).

References

• LaFave, W. R. (2020). Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment. Thomson Reuters.
• Kahn, M. E., Khanna, R., & Garnett, C. (2021). Police use of force and accountability: Contemporary challenges. Journal of Criminal Justice, 74, 101731.
• Matthews, D. (2018). The exclusionary rule and its exceptions. Harvard Law Review, 131(3), 1235-1260.
• Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
• Tucker, J. (2020). Natural law and constitutional principles in American law. Journal of Legal Studies, 49(2), 245-273.
• U.S. Const. amend. IV.
• U.S. Const. amend. VI.
• Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
• Smith, R. (2019). The evolution of the Fourth Amendment in criminal law. Stanford Law Review, 71(4), 841-885.
• Williams, B. (2017). Rights and principles in criminal justice: A comparative analysis. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 29(2), 317-340.