These Questions Have To Be Answered Individually You Can Sub

These Questions Have To Be Answered Individually You Can Submit Back

These questions have to be answered individually. You can submit back to me all together but answered individually.

Paper For Above instruction

1. What is “evidence that shocks the conscience?”

“Evidence that shocks the conscience” refers to conduct by law enforcement or government officials that is so egregious or brutal that it violates universal standards of human decency and fundamental fairness. Such conduct often involves excessive force, cruel or inhumane treatment, or actions that outraged the conscience of the judicial system. Courts consider this standard when determining whether certain evidence obtained through such misconduct should be admissible, emphasizing the importance of justice and moral integrity in legal proceedings (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 1985).

2. What remedies, other than the exclusionary rule, could be used to discourage police misconduct in violating the Fourth Amendment?

Other than the exclusionary rule, remedies to discourage police misconduct include civil rights lawsuits where victims can seek damages (42 U.S.C. § 1983), Internal Affairs investigations to hold officers accountable, disciplinary actions or termination, increased training on constitutional rights, and strengthened supervisory oversight. Additionally, community oversight boards and transparency initiatives can promote accountability. These measures aim to deter misconduct proactively and encourage law enforcement to adhere to constitutional standards, fostering trust and integrity within the policing system.

3. Define and compare the bright-line approach and the case-by-case method of determining reasonableness.

The bright-line approach establishes clear, definitive rules to judge reasonableness, providing certainty and predictability in legal standards. Conversely, the case-by-case method involves evaluating each situation individually, considering specific circumstances and context to determine reasonableness. While the bright-line approach simplifies enforcement and reduces ambiguity—for example, setting fixed thresholds for searches—the case-by-case method allows flexibility, accommodating unique facts but potentially leading to inconsistency and uncertainty in legal outcomes (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 1968).

4. Which need does the Fourth Amendment satisfy on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and how does it satisfy this need?

The Fourth Amendment primarily satisfies the need for safety and security on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. It protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, providing a legal safeguard against arbitrary government intrusion. By establishing clear limits on police authority, it helps create an environment where individuals feel secure in their homes and personal privacy, thereby fostering physical safety and emotional security essential for higher-level psychological well-being.

5. Does the Fourth Amendment guarantee absolute freedom from government intrusions? Why, or why not?

No, the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee absolute freedom from government intrusions. It protects against unreasonable searches and seizures but allows for certain exceptions—such as searches with probable cause, warrants, consent, or exigent circumstances. Courts have recognized practical limitations and the need for law enforcement to function effectively, balancing individual privacy rights with societal interests. Therefore, some intrusions are permissible under specific conditions, maintaining a nuanced standard rather than absolute protection (Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 1967).

6. Discuss which types of roadblocks and checkpoints are legal or illegal.

Legal roadblocks and checkpoints include sobriety checkpoints, where courts have upheld their constitutionality under specific guidelines ensuring minimal intrusiveness and public safety goals (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 1990). Illegal roadblocks often involve suspicionless stops or checkpoints designed primarily for general policing or general crime control without specific justification. For example, randomly stopping vehicles without a constitutional basis violates Fourth Amendment protections. Courts examine factors like the purpose, manner, and scope of these stops to determine legality.

7. What is a “de facto arrest?” Give an example of how such an arrest might occur.

A “de facto arrest” occurs when law enforcement restricts an individual’s freedom of movement in a manner comparable to an arrest, even if no formal arrest has been made. For example, if officers block a suspect’s vehicle, shout commands, or use physical force to detain someone without probable cause or an arrest warrant, it can be considered a de facto arrest. An example is when police surround a person standing on the street, order them to sit on the ground, and refuse to let them leave, effectively restraining their liberty without explicit arrest procedures.

8. What are “articulable facts,” and how do they differ from “gut feelings” in justifying a brief detention?

“Articulable facts” are objective, specific, and articulable in nature—such as suspicious behavior, flight from police, or items indicating criminal activity—that provide a rational basis for suspicion. They differ from “gut feelings,” which are subjective, instinctive impressions lacking specific reasoning or evidence. Courts require articulated facts to justify detentions, ensuring actions are grounded in reasonable suspicion rather than unsubstantiated hunches, thereby protecting individual rights against arbitrary searches or stops (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 1968).

9. Explain the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.”

The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine prevents the use of evidence obtained directly or indirectly from illegal searches or seizures. If initial evidence is unlawfully obtained, any subsequent evidence derived from it is typically inadmissible in court, aiming to deter illegal conduct by law enforcement. Exceptions include independent discoveries or inevitable discovery doctrine, which allow some illegally obtained evidence to be admitted if it would have been discovered lawfully. This doctrine underscores the importance of constitutional protections in maintaining the integrity of judicial proceedings.

10. Discuss what officers can and cannot do regarding the treatment of both the driver and the passenger during a traffic stop. Be sure to cite relevant case law.

During a traffic stop, officers can request driver and passenger licenses and registration, conduct a visual inspection, and ask questions related to the stop. Officers may also conduct a limited frisk if they have reasonable suspicion of weapons (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 1968). However, they cannot search the vehicle or person without probable cause or a warrant unless an exception applies, such as consent or exigent circumstances. Use of excessive force, discriminatory treatment, or invasive searches beyond the scope of reasonable suspicion violates Fourth Amendment rights (Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 1977).

11. Discuss the amount of force that police can use in effectuating an arrest and preventing a suspect from escaping or overcoming resistance.

Police are authorized to use force that is objectively reasonable under the circumstances to effectuate an arrest or prevent escape, as established in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). The force must be proportionate to the threat posed by the suspect. Deadly force is permissible only when there is an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to officers or others (Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 2007). The use of excessive force, which exceeds what is necessary, violates constitutional rights. Courts evaluate factors such as the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and whether suspects resisted or attempted to flee. For instance, in Graham, the Court emphasized that application of force must be measured and reasonable; unprovoked or excessive use of force constitutes a violation (Graham v. Connor). In cases where a suspect attempts to overcome arrest with violence or imminent danger to officers or bystanders, higher levels of force may be justified, but always within the constitutional standard. Additionally, the concept of “objectively reasonable” emphasizes that officer actions are judged from the perspective at the moment, not in hindsight, considering the facts known to the officer at the time.

References

• Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
• Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)
• Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
• Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
• Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977)
• Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007)
• Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007)
• Illinois v. Lidster, 541 U.S. 431 (2004)
• Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991)
• U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, “Investigation of Police Misconduct,” https://www.justice.gov/crt