Please Answer The Following Questions In Complete Sentences

Please Answer The Following Questions In Complete Sentences Answers S

Please answer the following questions in complete sentences. Answers should be 3-4 paragraphs in length. Provide references to case law whenever appropriate.

1. Define the doctrine of judicial review and explain its significance in the American legal system.

2. Why does criminal law differ from criminal procedure? Please also give an example of each.

3. Define and compare probable cause and reasonable suspicion.

4. What is the purpose of the Exclusionary Rule? Why is it important in criminal cases? Summarize the Terry v. Ohio case and why it is a landmark Supreme Court opinion.

5. Why are there different requirements for an arrest with and without a warrant?

6. What are the requirements that must be met for a valid search warrant?

7. What actions can a police officer legally take after a vehicle stop?

Paper For Above instruction

The doctrine of judicial review is a fundamental principle in the American legal system that grants courts the authority to examine and invalidate laws or government actions that are found to be unconstitutional. This principle was established firmly in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803), where Chief Justice John Marshall articulated that it is the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is and to ensure that legislative and executive actions adhere to the Constitution. Judicial review acts as a vital check and balance against the other branches of government, preventing unconstitutional laws from taking effect, and protecting individual rights and freedoms. Without this power, legislatures and executives could potentially pass laws or take actions that violate constitutional principles, undermining the rule of law and the integrity of the democratic process.

In the American legal system, judicial review underscores the supremacy of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. It embodies the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional rights and maintaining the balance of power among the branches of government. This process has been reaffirmed through numerous Supreme Court decisions and remains a central feature of constitutional governance. Its significance extends beyond mere legality, influencing policy decisions, civil rights, and the interpretation of statutory laws, thus shaping the legal landscape of the United States (Chemerinsky, 2019).

Criminal law and criminal procedure serve different purposes within the criminal justice system. Criminal law defines offenses and prescribes punishments for conduct deemed harmful to society, such as theft or assault. It is primarily concerned with establishing what constitutes criminal behavior and determining guilt or innocence. For example, the Model Penal Code defines various crimes and their elements. Meanwhile, criminal procedure pertains to the legal processes involved in enforcing criminal laws. It governs how law enforcement officers investigate crimes, make arrests, conduct searches, and conduct trials, ensuring that individuals' constitutional rights are protected throughout the process. An example of criminal procedure is the requirement for police to obtain a warrant before conducting a search, unless exigent circumstances apply, as established in Chimel v. California (1969).

The distinction between probable cause and reasonable suspicion lies in the level of justification needed for different law enforcement activities. Probable cause is a higher standard, requiring that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed a crime or that evidence of a crime exists in a particular place. This standard is required for obtaining search warrants and making arrests (Brinegar v. United States, 1949). Conversely, reasonable suspicion is a lower standard, sufficient for police to stop and briefly detain an individual for investigatory purposes, as clarified in Terry v. Ohio (1968). In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that officers could stop and question individuals if they have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, even without probable cause. Comparing the two, probable cause involves more concrete evidence and is necessary for searches and arrests, while reasonable suspicion permits less intrusive investigative stops.

The Exclusionary Rule serves to deter law enforcement from conducting illegal searches and seizures by excluding evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights, specifically the Fourth Amendment. Its purpose is to uphold individual privacy rights and ensure that evidence used in court is obtained lawfully, maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. The rule originated from the Supreme Court decision in Weeks v. United States (1914), which held that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in federal court. It was extended to state courts in Mapp v. Ohio (1961). The exclusionary rule is crucial because it discourages unlawful conduct by law enforcement and reinforces the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures (Lafave, 2018).

The case of Terry v. Ohio (1968) is a landmark Supreme Court decision that established the legality of stop-and-frisk procedures based on reasonable suspicion. In this case, an officer observed Terry and others acting suspiciously, prompting a stop and frisks that led to the discovery of weapons. The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment permits brief seizures and searches if police officers have reasonable suspicion, less than probable cause, that a person is involved in criminal activity. This case is landmark because it delineates the balance between individual rights and law enforcement interests, allowing police to investigate suspicious activity without violating constitutional protections. Its ruling has significantly impacted policing practices, enabling officers to take preventative action while maintaining constitutional rights (Terry v. Ohio, 1968).

Different requirements govern arrests with and without warrants because the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures necessitate different levels of justification. An arrest warrant is usually required when authorities seek to arrest a person in their home or private place, based on probable cause, and supported by a neutral magistrate’s approval. This process ensures judicial oversight and helps prevent arbitrary arrests. Without a warrant, officers may arrest individuals without prior approval if there are exigent circumstances, such as the imminent risk of destruction of evidence, danger to public safety, or hot pursuit of a suspect. These exceptions recognize the practical realities of law enforcement but also impose limits to prevent abuse of power.

To constitute a valid search warrant, several requirements must be met. First, the warrant must be based on probable cause, supported by a sworn affidavit or testimony indicating that evidence of a crime is likely to be found in the location to be searched. Second, the warrant must specify the exact place to be searched and the items to be seized, ensuring that searches are targeted and not overly broad (Maryland v. Garrison, 1987). Third, the warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate who evaluates the application and determines whether the evidence supports issuance. Additionally, the warrant must be executed within a reasonable time frame and in accordance with the scope outlined in the order. These safeguards are designed to protect citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights while enabling law enforcement to conduct effective searches.

After a vehicle stop, law enforcement officers are legally authorized to engage in specific actions, including issuing citations or warnings, questioning the occupants, and conducting a brief investigation based on reasonable suspicion. If officers develop probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime exists in the vehicle or that the occupants are engaged in illegal activity, they may conduct a search of the vehicle without a warrant under the automobile exception. Additionally, officers can arrest individuals if they have probable cause and the circumstances justify an immediate arrest. However, the scope of searches and actions taken must adhere to constitutional protections, and any evidence obtained unlawfully is subject to exclusion under the exclusionary rule. Proper conduct during vehicle stops ensures officers respect constitutional rights while effectively enforcing the law (Arizona v. Gant, 2009).

References

• Chemerinsky, E. (2019). Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies. Foundation Press.
• Lafave, W. (2018). Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment. West Academic Publishing.
• Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987).
• Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
• Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
• Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949).
• Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969).
• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
• Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009).
• Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).