Assignment 2: A Crime In Centervalewhile Patrolling

Assignment 2 A Crime In Centervalewhile Patrolling During His Shift

Discuss the roles of the detective, the defendants, the attorneys, and the judge in the criminal justice process. What actions did each do correctly or incorrectly in this case? What rights did the victim or the defendants have that were not exercised? Explain your opinion about what should have happened, using information from the text or outside sources.

Paper For Above instruction

The criminal justice process is a complex system involving various roles such as detectives, defendants, attorneys, and judges, each with specific responsibilities and rights meant to uphold justice and protect individual liberties. Analyzing the case involving Detective Johnson and the three men in Centerville provides insight into how these roles function and how rights may be infringed upon or misused during criminal investigations and proceedings.

Initial Reason for the Arrest and Search

Detective Johnson observed suspicious behavior—two men repeatedly surveilling a jewelry store and a third man approaching and handing something to one of them, which was later found in his pocket. Based on these observations, the detective had probable cause to approach the individuals. Probable cause for a search and seizure arises when facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense is being committed or has been committed. Johnson’s observations of furtive behavior, combined with the act of handing something to another person, justified a reasonable suspicion that the men were involved in criminal activity.

However, the extent of the search and whether it was justified depends on adherence to Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. The detective’s pat-down of the outside clothing and feeling a hard object was arguably justified as a frisk based on reasonable suspicion, especially if the officer believed the person might be armed and dangerous. Nonetheless, the subsequent search of pockets, removal of jackets, and discovery of contraband could be viewed as exceeding the scope of a lawful frisk if not supported by additional probable cause or warrant, thus raising constitutional concerns.

Roles and Actions of Key Figures

The detective’s role is to investigate suspicious activity and uphold the law, but he must operate within constitutional boundaries. Johnson's initial approach and subsequent pat-downs may be deemed acceptable, but the removal of the gun and ring without a warrant or explicit consent enters into questionable legal territory. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is protected under the Fourth Amendment, and any violation can jeopardize the admissibility of evidence.

The defendants, particularly the individual with the gun and ring, had rights that appear to be compromised. The man with the gun requested a lawyer, demonstrating awareness of his rights, yet Johnson dismissed this request and continued questioning. The defendants also had the right to refuse searches and to be informed of their rights—a requirement established in the Miranda v. Arizona decision—though such rights are generally invoked during custodial interrogation rather than initial stop and frisk.

The attorneys’ roles are vital in protecting the defendants’ rights. In this case, Danny’s lawyer advised him to consider a plea deal, which seems appropriate given the evidence and allegations against him. However, there is concern that Danny may not have fully understood his rights or the consequences of pleading guilty, especially if there was insufficient legal counsel or if his rights to a fair trial were compromised by the plea bargaining process.

The judge's role is to ensure fair proceedings and uphold the Constitution. While the judge followed protocol by accepting Danny’s guilty plea and sentencing him, the judge’s decision to agree with the plea deal and delay sentencing for testimony can be scrutinized. If evidence was obtained unlawfully or if there was undue influence through plea bargains, the fairness of the proceedings could be questioned. Nonetheless, the judge's duty is to oversee a fair trial and ensure that legal standards are maintained.

Unexercised Rights and Their Implications

The victim’s rights appear underrepresented, especially since the victim objected to the plea deal but was overridden by the prosecutor and court decision. Victims have a right to be heard and to have their interests considered in criminal proceedings, yet this right was apparently overlooked during the plea bargaining process.

The defendant Danny also lacked full exercise of his rights during initial detention. His confinement and the subsequent search possibly violated his Fourth Amendment rights if not supported by probable cause. Furthermore, his right to legal counsel was challenged; he requested an attorney during the search, but his request was dismissed, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.

What Should Have Happened

Proper procedures would have included continuous adherence to constitutional protections. Detective Johnson should have obtained a warrant before conducting extensive searches of the suspects’ pockets and belongings unless exigent circumstances justified an immediate search. The suspect’s right to consult an attorney should have been respected, especially upon request, and Miranda rights should have been read upon custodial interrogation, which did occur after the arrest when Danny was questioned extensively.

Furthermore, the plea deal and subsequent sentencing could have been challenged if evidence was unlawfully obtained or if the defendant was coerced into pleading guilty. Ensuring transparency and adherence to legal standards would have preserved the fairness of the proceedings and the rights of all involved.

In conclusion, while law enforcement actions are driven by the intent to prevent crime, they must operate within constitutional limits. Protecting individual rights during searches, interrogations, and trials is paramount to maintaining justice. Educating officers and legal professionals about these rights and ensuring proper procedures are followed are essential steps toward a fair criminal justice system.

References

• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
• U.S. Constitution. Fourth Amendment.
• U.S. Department of Justice. (2019). Principles of Detective Work. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/
• Fellers, J. (2004). Constitutional Law and Criminal Justice. Pearson.
• LaFave, W. R. (2015). Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment. West Academic Publishing.
• Gaza, F. (2017). The Rights of Criminal Defendants. Oxford University Press.
• Potter, H. (2018). Criminal Law and Procedure. Cengage Learning.
• Reports of the American Civil Liberties Union. (2020). Police Conduct and Rights Violations. ACLU.org.
• Legal Information Institute. (2022). Search & Seizure. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_and_seizure
• Smith, J. (2016). The Role of the Judge in the Criminal Justice System. Harvard Law Review, 129(4), 1004-1020.