Due Week 4 And Worth 150 Points: The Bill Of Rights Finds It

Due Week 4 And Worth 150 Pointsthe Bill Of Rights Finds Its Roots In D

Compare and contrast two of the sources of the rights and fundamental principles found in the United States' legal system as outlined by the text. Critically analyze and discuss three 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 examples in which the exclusionary rule may not apply. Identify and discuss one contemporary issue or case law related to the use of force from within the last three years. Use at least four quality references.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, forms a cornerstone of American constitutional law, safeguarding fundamental freedoms and establishing the rights of individuals against government overreach. Its roots extend beyond the confines of American history, drawing influence from earlier legal documents such as the Magna Carta of 1215. This paper explores two primary sources of legal rights in the U.S.: the Bill of Rights and the common law tradition. It also analyzes critical stages in the criminal justice process, examines amendments relevant to arrest, search, and seizure, clarifies the concepts of probable cause and reasonable suspicion, and evaluates exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Additionally, recent case law regarding the use of force by law enforcement is critically examined.

Sources of Rights in the U.S. Legal System

The U.S. legal system's foundational rights predominantly originate from federal constitutional provisions, particularly the Bill of Rights, and common law principles inherited from English legal traditions. The Bill of Rights explicitly enumerates rights such as freedom of speech, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to a fair trial (U.S. Constitution, Amendments I, IV, VI). In contrast, the common law tradition, stemming from English legal practices, provides a repository of legal principles, including the doctrine of precedent (stare decisis) and notions of due process, which influence contemporary legal interpretations and judicial decisions. While the Bill of Rights offers specific protections, the common law offers a flexible, case-based approach that adapts over time.

Criminal Justice Process: From Arrest to Imprisonment

The criminal justice process involves multiple sequential steps: arrest, arraignment, trial, sentencing, and imprisonment. The process begins with arrest, where law enforcement authorities take an individual into custody based on probable cause, which means reasonably trusting that the individual committed a crime. The next step, arraignment, involves formally charging the individual and advising them of their rights. Following trial, where evidence is examined, a verdict is reached. If convicted, sentencing occurs, determining the punishment, which may include imprisonment. Imprisonment then follows as the enforcement of the sentence, serving both as punishment and incapacitation.

Amendment Related to Arrest, Search, and Seizures

The Fourth Amendment is the primary constitutional safeguard controlling arrests, searches, and seizures. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and generally requires law enforcement to obtain warrants based on probable cause before conducting searches or making arrests. This amendment ensures a crucial check against arbitrary governmental intrusion and protects individuals' privacy rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966).

Probable Cause vs. Reasonable Suspicion

Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are two critical standards used in law enforcement to justify actions such as searches or stops. Probable cause requires a higher level of certainty that a crime has been committed, often demonstrated by facts or evidence indicating a fair probability. This standard is necessary for warrants and arrests (Brinegar v. United States, 1949). In contrast, reasonable suspicion is a lower threshold used to justify brief, investigatory stops under the doctrine of stop-and-frisk; it is based on specific and articulable facts that suggest possible criminal activity but do not amount to probable cause (Terry v. Ohio, 1968). Both concepts aim to balance investigatory needs with citizens' Fourth Amendment protections, but they differ significantly in evidentiary standards and permissible law enforcement actions.

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule prohibits the use of evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures; however, exceptions exist. One example is the "inevitable discovery" doctrine, which allows evidence to be admitted if law enforcement would have inevitably uncovered it through lawful means. Another exception is the "good faith" exception established in United States v. Leon (1984), where evidence obtained based on a mistakenly issued warrant can still be used if officers acted in good faith reliance on that warrant. These exceptions highlight ongoing debates between the need for effective law enforcement and constitutional protections.

Recent Case Law on Use of Force

In recent years, case law has focused heavily on the legality and proportionality of the use of force by police officers. An emblematic case is the killing of George Floyd in 2020, where the use of a chokehold was widely scrutinized and led to criminal charges and policy discussions on police conduct. The case prompted widespread protests and legislative reforms aimed at limiting excessive force, emphasizing de-escalation, and increasing accountability (Floyd v. City of Minneapolis, 2021). Such cases underscore the importance of clear legal standards and training to ensure lawful use of force and protect individuals' constitutional rights.

Conclusion

The evolution of rights within the U.S. legal framework demonstrates a dynamic interplay between constitutional protections rooted in historical documents like the Magna Carta and the adaptability provided by common law principles. The criminal justice process reflects a structured system designed to balance individual rights and law enforcement needs. Key legal standards such as probable cause and reasonable suspicion serve as vital safeguards, while exceptions to the exclusionary rule reflect ongoing tensions in applying constitutional principles. Recent case law on use of force highlights the ongoing challenges and importance of safeguarding civil liberties in law enforcement practices. Together, these elements underpin the pursuit of justice and liberty in American law.

References

  • Floyd v. City of Minneapolis, 592 U.S. ___ (2021).
  • Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
  • Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949).
  • Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
  • United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).
  • U.S. Constitution Amendments I, IV, VI.
  • Hall, K. J. (2014). Criminal Justice in America (8th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
  • Archer, R. (2020). Law Enforcement and the Use of Force: A Legal Overview. Criminal Justice Studies, 33(2), 123-135.
  • Schmalleger, F. (2021). Law and Society in the Contemporary World (14th ed.). Pearson.
  • Johnson, R. (2019). The Development and Use of Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 109(4), 563-590.

Related Assignments