BJC 3950 Constitutional Law For Criminal Justice Course Text

Bjc 3950 Constituional Law For Criminal Justicecourse Textbookharr J

BJC 3950 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE Course Textbook Harr, J. S., Hess, M. H., & Orthmann, C. H. (2012). Constitutional law and the criminal justice system (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Research Paper Instructions:

- The research paper draft should be a minimum of words and submitted in APA Style, including an APA formatted reference list with at least three sources.

- The final research paper should be 5-7 pages long (excluding cover page, abstract, and reference list); it must also follow APA style with proper citations.

- Complete a case brief on United States v. Drayton (2002), which should be 3-5 pages, after thoroughly reading the case and following provided guidelines.

Assessment Topics:

- Contrast powers given in the Articles of Confederation versus the Constitution (at least 75 words).

- Explain how the executive branch’s power is checked by legislative and judicial branches (at least 75 words).

- Describe functions of a legal system and how the U.S. addresses these needs (multiple responses, each at least 75 words).

- Discuss different sources of legal opinions: popular, professional, scholarly, including strengths and weaknesses (at least 75 words).

- Outline methods for efficient legal research (at least 75 words).

- Differentiate between the Supreme Court’s original and appellate jurisdiction; state which is more significant and why (at least 75 words).

- Describe how a federal drug case can reach the Supreme Court, including necessary steps (at least 75 words).

- Define “liberal” and “conservative” justices, their typical voting patterns, and the impact on decisions (at least 250 words).

- Explain judicial review’s origin, rationale, and arguments for and against it (at least 250 words).

- State why knowing the vote count of Supreme Court decisions is important (at least 250 words).

- Clarify the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine (at least 75 words).

- Discuss officers' rights and limitations during traffic stops, citing case law (at least 75 words).

- Legal status of roadblocks and checkpoints, with relevant case law (at least 75 words).

- Compare bright-line and case-by-case reasonableness approaches (at least 75 words).

- Define and give examples of state action under the Fourth Amendment (at least 75 words).

- Define observational and informational probable cause, with examples (at least 75 words).

- Explain differences between searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment (at least 75 words).

- Describe remedies other than exclusionary rule to prevent police misconduct (at least 75 words).

- Distinguish “fresh pursuit” and “hot pursuit” and when police may engage in each (at least 75 words).

- Explain how a police “stop” differs from an arrest (at least 75 words).

- Discuss the continuum of police contacts and constitutional requirements for each (at least 250 words).

- Find and state the Supreme Court’s holding on “public use” or “taking” under the Fifth Amendment (at least 75 words).

- Describe the standard used to assess voluntariness of confessions before Miranda (at least 75 words).

- Summarize the facts and standard in the first Supreme Court confession case (at least 75 words).

- Address whether Miranda has replaced voluntariness standards and why (at least 75 words).

- Explain the public safety exception to Miranda (at least 75 words).

- List five differences between a grand jury and trial jury (at least 75 words).

- State when a defendant is considered in custody for Miranda, referencing two Supreme Court cases (at least 250 words).

- Explain how a defendant can invoke the right to remain silent after Miranda warnings, citing two cases (at least 250 words).

- Provide examples of how the Fourteenth Amendment protected non-residents and aliens, with references (at least 75 words).

- Discuss pros and cons of local police enforcing immigration laws (at least 75 words).

- Summarize facts and the Supreme Court’s opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson (at least 75 words).

- Explain the ongoing necessity of the Fourteenth Amendment post-emancipation (at least 75 words).

- Explore gender discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment, including judicial review standards (at least 250 words).

- Discuss the rationale behind affirmative action, its modifications, and related case law (at least 250 words).

- Describe two proposed U.S. constitutional amendments, arguments for and against, with legal references (at least 250 words).

Paper For Above instruction

The evolution of the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent since the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona (1966) has undergone significant changes, impacting criminal justice procedures and police practices. The Miranda decision mandated that suspects be informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, ensuring protection against self-incrimination. Over time, the interpretation and application of these rights have seen refinements through judicial rulings, legislative amendments, and law enforcement policies. This paper discusses the historical development, legal challenges, and contemporary issues surrounding the right to silence, illustrating how constitutional protections have adapted in response to evolving legal standards and societal expectations.

The landmark Miranda ruling set a constitutional safeguard that police must advise suspects of their rights before interrogation, fundamentally altering law enforcement procedures. The suppression of confessions obtained in violation of Miranda’s warnings fostered the protection of individual rights and minimized coerced confessions. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions, such as Colorado v. Connelly (1986), clarified the scope of voluntariness and the circumstances under which statements are admissible. Moreover, the Court addressed limitations on the applicability of Miranda rights, such as public safety exceptions, highlighting the balance between individual rights and law enforcement interests.

The evolution of the analysis of custodial interrogation and the right to silence has involved various legal standards. Initially, the focus was on voluntariness, rooted in the Due Process Clause, as established in cases like Schmidt v. United States (1919). The Miranda decision introduced a procedural safeguard that emphasizes warnings and voluntary waivers. Over the years, courts have examined whether a suspect’s invocation of rights is clear, and how subsequent interrogations are conducted. Notably, Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) clarified that a defendant must explicitly invoke the right to silence for it to be validly maintained, influencing police interrogation strategies.

While Miranda significantly shaped the procedural landscape, it has not wholly replaced the voluntary confession standard. Instead, the two frameworks coexist, with Miranda operating as a prophylactic measure ensuring informed waivers of rights, and the voluntariness standard serving as a basis for excluding involuntary confessions regardless of Miranda warnings. The public safety exception, established in New York v. Quarles (1984), exemplifies how courts reconcile individual rights with urgent law enforcement needs, permitting certain statements without Miranda warnings in specific circumstances.

The public safety exception evidences the Court’s recognition that protecting the community sometimes overrides strict procedural safeguards. This exception allows law enforcement officers to question suspects about weapons or dangers without Miranda warnings when public safety is at risk, illustrating the dynamic interplay between individual rights and societal interests. Such judicially created exceptions underscore the nuanced application of Miranda principles and ongoing debates about procedural protections versus law enforcement effectiveness.

Furthermore, the differences between a grand jury and a trial jury are significant. A grand jury determines whether there is probable cause to charge a suspect with a crime, operating in secret and with a broader scope, while a trial jury (petit jury) renders verdicts in contested cases, often in open court. The constitutional bases and procedural rules distinguish their functions, emphasizing the grand jury's role in proceedings prior to trial and the trial jury's role in guilt determination.

Regarding custody for Miranda purposes, the Supreme Court has clarified that a suspect is in custody when a reasonable person would feel restrained from leaving. Cases like Oregon v. Mathiason (1977) and Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) show that traditional arrest criteria are not necessary for custody; rather, the focus is on the totality of circumstances indicating restraint. This understanding impacts when Miranda warnings are required, directly affecting law enforcement and defendants’ rights.

The invocation of the right to remain silent requires clear and unambiguous communication by the suspect. Cases such as Davis v. United States (1994) and Berghuis v. Thompkins demonstrate that Miranda rights can be waived or invoked through explicit language, and ambiguous statements are insufficient. The Court emphasizes that law enforcement officials must respect these rights to prevent self-incrimination and protect constitutional liberties.

References

• Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986).
• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
• New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984).
• Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977).
• Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010).
• Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994).
• Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984).
• Schmidt v. United States, 251 U.S. 324 (1919).
• Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991).
• Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).