Overview: It Is Important To Understand Your Responsibilitie

Overviewit Is Important To Understand Your Responsibilities As A Crimi

Overview It is important to understand your responsibilities as a criminal justice professional when engaging with citizens. This assignment is broken into three parts and you must complete each part of the assignment. Each part includes a text or video scenario to which you will respond by writing a 1-2 page paper for each scenario that examines specific information regarding the events using your knowledge of the United States Constitution.

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 jail, the student is booked. Six hours later, the student is interviewed by Detective Columbo. The detective reads the student his Miranda warning and asks if the student would like to make a statement.

The student replies, "No, I want a lawyer." Write a 1-2 page paper 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 once within your assignment. Consider using Cornell Law's LII U.S. Constitution webpage for reference.

Paper For Above instruction

The scenario involving the 18-year-old student carrying a loaded firearm on school grounds raises significant constitutional considerations, primarily centered around the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. Proper adherence to constitutional procedures is critical to ensure the admissibility of evidence obtained during the investigation and to uphold the rights of the individual.

The Fourth Amendment, ratified in 1791, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In a school setting, courts have recognized a reduced expectation of privacy, allowing school officials to conduct searches based on reasonable suspicion (New Jersey v. TLO, 1985). Under the reasonable suspicion standard, school security guards and administrators may search students' lockers, backpacks, or personal items if there is a suspicion of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, law enforcement officers arriving at the scene, such as Officer Smith, must also adhere to constitutional standards. If police are involved, a probable cause or a warrant is generally required unless exigent circumstances exist (Veronia School District v. Acton, 1995). Since the search was conducted by school personnel and not the police, the initial search may be permissible if school policies permit, but law enforcement's later involvement introduces additional constitutional protections.

When Officer Smith arrived and conducted his search, the legality depended on whether the search was justified by reasonable suspicion and whether the proper procedures were followed. The seizure of the firearm was lawful if the search was justified under the school's policies and constitutional standards. However, the subsequent arrest and detention involved further constitutional considerations. The student's statements and the admissibility of the evidence depend on adherence to the Fifth Amendment rights. Under Miranda v. Arizona (1966), any custodial interrogation requires that the suspect be informed of rights, including the right to remain silent and to have an attorney present. The scenario indicates that the student was not read his Miranda rights until after arriving at the jail, which is consistent with legal requirements.

The student's refusal to speak further and request for a lawyer exemplifies his Fifth Amendment rights. Any statements made prior to the Miranda warning, such as the initial confession on the way to jail, may be inadmissible unless an exception applies, such as spontaneous statements or public safety concerns (Rhode Island v. Innis, 1980). Moreover, the silence after the Miranda warning and his invocation of the right to counsel must be respected; further interrogation should cease until a lawyer is present (Edwards v. Arizona, 1981).

In conclusion, the officer's initial search may be lawful depending on whether school policies and constitutional standards were followed. The student's confession obtained before Miranda warnings may be inadmissible, but any statements made after the proper warnings, including his refusal to speak, are protected. Ensuring compliance with these constitutional principles is essential to maintain the integrity of the legal process and the admissibility of evidence.

References

• New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985).
• Veronia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995).
• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
• Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980).
• Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).
• Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). U.S. Constitution Annotated. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution
• Schmalleger, F. (2020). Criminology Today: An Integrative Approach (8th ed.). Pearson.
• Walker, S., & Pope, B. (2021). Introduction to Criminal Justice. Springer.
• Dressler, J. (2018). Criminal Evidence. LexisNexis.
• LaFave, W. R., & Israel, J. H. (2020). Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment. Thomson Reuters.