We don’t agree with Justice Breyer’s opinion. We think that finding evidence is instinct for police and the exclusionary rule will not deter them from doing what they think is right. The article is about all the different countries version of the exclusionary rule. The U.S. has one of the toughest, but a lot of people in the country support the rule. Also there are people that feel it is necessary, but needs to be rewritten to fit today’s society. Justice Scalia said, “The exclusionary rule had outlived its original purpose.” Evidence found illegally should not be used. Other countries let the judge decide if evidence can be used. We are the only country that does not let any of the evidence be used in the case. We think that we do not need the exclusionary rule. Evidence should be used to get criminals off the street no matter how it was found. Police are supposed to protect the people, but how can they do that when finding things illegally is always in the back of their minds. Criminals choose to break the law and should not have any rights. The police are getting punished for taking criminals off the street and must needs to stop. The police are doing their jobs.
In the case the State of Hawaii v. Lenee Propios police searched Lenee for cocaine possession as well as her house. She was on probation for a previous conviction of misuse of drug paraphernalia. Her probation officer was conducting interviews with her on a monthly basis as well as drug tests. The hope was Lenee was going to stop using drugs.
Her first interview Lenee admitted to using cocaine and marijuana. She also tested positive for both substances. Her second interview started leading towards the hint of a search. She said she was struggling staying off of drugs because she was still living with her boyfriend. Her probation officer took this as the boy friend was supplying her with the drugs. The probation officer suggested that if she tested positive, which she did, that they would do a strip search of her during her next interview. They also searched her residents where her boy friend, the drug dealer, was living. They swept through the house and took pictures. All of this was done without securing a warrant. (http://hi.findacase.com/, 2)
According to Hawaii state law a probation officer can consent her parolee to a warrantless search as long as there is reasonableness. Parolees do have a right to privacy, but can be searched without a warrant. I would consider this a crime committed in the presence of an officer type search. The officer knew Lenee was doing cocaine so that gave her the consent to search. The reasonableness in this case comes from the fact Lenee’s boy friend was a known drug dealer and that her past three drug tests were positive for cocaine. The search of the house was allowed since it was considered a supervisory search, not a search where they were looking for a conviction. (http://hi.findacase.com/, 3)
Muranaka, Gail. [interviewer]. Lenee Propios [interviewee]. (1994) Hawaii Supreme Court.
Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/yfm5fs2.
The creation of the Miranda rights had been taken place after the incident in 1963, Miranda v Arizona. In this trial Ernesto Miranda was prosecuted after confessing to kidnapping and raping a mildly mentally challenged 18 year old woman. Due to the fact that they hadn’t read his rights to remain silence unless he wanted to be appointed counsel, his attorney fought to rule out his confession. Although the ruling was first denied, when it came in front of the Supreme Court in 1966, they ruled out the statements Miranda used since it lacked the protection of his constitutional rights. Subsequently today, during handcuffing a suspect or criminal, police quotes to the person in custody, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.” (Mount, S. (1995). The Miranda Warning. Retrieved October 19, 2009 from http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html) Regardless of the Miranda rights, there are certain cases that give authorization with statements given to authority from the person charged when the Miranda rights weren’t given. For example, in a situation where a weapon is involved, the “Public Safety Doctrine” allows police to ask where it is without having to say the Miranda rights. During incarceration, without plainly specifying that he/she wants to have a lawyer present during questionnaires, the police can no longer ask any more questions. However, if the person incarcerated says they “think” they “might” want a lawyer present, the questioning may continue. Only that sole person can ask for an attorney present for the Miranda rights to be in effect. If a family member sends in a lawyer without consent from the person held in question, whatever is said can be used against in them in testimony (Siegal p. 340).
Siegel, L. (2008). Introduction to Criminal Justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
In the case the State of Hawaii v. Lenee Propios police searched Lenee for cocaine possession as well as her house. She was on probation for a previous conviction of misuse of drug paraphernalia. Her probation officer was conducting interviews with her on a monthly basis as well as drug tests. The hope was Lenee was going to stop using drugs.
Her first interview Lenee admitted to using cocaine and marijuana. She also tested positive for both substances. Her second interview started leading towards the hint of a search. She said she was struggling staying off of drugs because she was still living with her boyfriend. Her probation officer took this as the boy friend was supplying her with the drugs. The probation officer suggested that if she tested positive, which she did, that they would do a strip search of her during her next interview. They also searched her residents where her boy friend, the drug dealer, was living. They swept through the house and took pictures. All of this was done without securing a warrant. (http://hi.findacase.com/, 2)
According to Hawaii state law a probation officer can consent her parolee to a warrantless search as long as there is reasonableness. Parolees do have a right to privacy, but can be searched without a warrant. I would consider this a crime committed in the presence of an officer type search. The officer knew Lenee was doing cocaine so that gave her the consent to search. The reasonableness in this case comes from the fact Lenee’s boy friend was a known drug dealer and that her past three drug tests were positive for cocaine. The search of the house was allowed since it was considered a supervisory search, not a search where they were looking for a conviction. (http://hi.findacase.com/, 3)
Muranaka, Gail. [interviewer]. Lenee Propios [interviewee]. (1994) Hawaii Supreme Court.
Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/yfm5fs2.
The creation of the Miranda rights had been taken place after the incident in 1963, Miranda v Arizona. In this trial Ernesto Miranda was prosecuted after confessing to kidnapping and raping a mildly mentally challenged 18 year old woman. Due to the fact that they hadn’t read his rights to remain silence unless he wanted to be appointed counsel, his attorney fought to rule out his confession. Although the ruling was first denied, when it came in front of the Supreme Court in 1966, they ruled out the statements Miranda used since it lacked the protection of his constitutional rights. Subsequently today, during handcuffing a suspect or criminal, police quotes to the person in custody, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.” (Mount, S. (1995). The Miranda Warning. Retrieved October 19, 2009 from http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html) Regardless of the Miranda rights, there are certain cases that give authorization with statements given to authority from the person charged when the Miranda rights weren’t given. For example, in a situation where a weapon is involved, the “Public Safety Doctrine” allows police to ask where it is without having to say the Miranda rights. During incarceration, without plainly specifying that he/she wants to have a lawyer present during questionnaires, the police can no longer ask any more questions. However, if the person incarcerated says they “think” they “might” want a lawyer present, the questioning may continue. Only that sole person can ask for an attorney present for the Miranda rights to be in effect. If a family member sends in a lawyer without consent from the person held in question, whatever is said can be used against in them in testimony (Siegal p. 340).
Siegel, L. (2008). Introduction to Criminal Justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
No comments:
Post a Comment