Although he was not yet placed under arrest, he was being interrogated in a police station and being asked incriminating questions. Any average person, especially a kid, would reasonably believe that they were in police custody. Furthermore, he technically was in custody seeing as he was deprived of his freedom in a significant way, in his case being held at the police department for hours. Therefore, Thomas Cogdell deserved to have a lawyer present during his interrogation. The second of Cogdell’s constitutional rights to be violated involves a case decided before the Miranda case, but is still applicable nonetheless.
Now although the office filled the warrant out he didn’t specify which unit in a multi-family housing unit was supposed to be search. Unfortunately, the police raided the wrong house or residence, which in returned caused them to kick down the door as well as terrorize an innocent family. Therefore, an innocent person could have gotten killed which has happened before in New York. However, the requirement that the location of a search warrant be specific isn’t “a technicality” but a core principle of the Fourth Amendment (washingtonpost.com. n.d.).
Arnie and the officer entered into the suspects home without a warrant or probable cause and they then proceeded to search his house illegal and used the evidence in the house to question him without using informing him of his rights. 2. What would have been the proper investigative steps to take? The right investigative steps would be to watch the man and when they had probable cause or enough evidence for a warrant then they could take action. They could ask to come in and if he lets them in and they find something in plain view then they can use that to arrest him.
Round’s case, he did not exhibit any signs that would point to the immediate usage of drugs. Officer Towns could go as far as verifying that what was in the plastic bag was indeed gift cards, but the actions that he took from then on are unconstitutional. The illegality of the gift cards were not immediate apparent that Officer Towns had to scan the gift cards in his patrol car, but he admitted that even that scan proved useless in understanding the illegality of the gift cards. Furthermore, he had to bring the gift cards back to his precinct’s cyber-forensics department to determine whether or not the gift cards were illegal. In another landmark case Arizona v. Hicks, the warrantless search of the stereo was unconstitutional because it was not immediately apparent that the stereo was stolen without the procedure following it.
This line of argument by the prosecutor does, and did not bring any further evidence against Guiseppe Smeraldi for the crime of Grand Larceny, which was the reason for the trial. Another argument that the prosecutor made was , “Q. Well, don’t you know that very recently he was serving sentence in jail? A. Yes, sir” (pg.47).
Once information enters the online data bases, it is impossible to erase. The data can be used in court to draw incorrect conclusions and put someone in prison for good. The U.S. government does keep tabs on its citizens. John Simpson, a privacy project director says, “I don’t really want to live in a total surveillance state where big brother knows everything I do and has all that information at its fingertips.” Edward Snowden released this information out of concern because he thought it was dangerous. The government debated about Snowden being considered a traitor or patriot of the country.
What Brady v. Maryland inspires is a duty upon prosecutors to search all the government files for “Brady” material. If it the any material consistent with the “Brady” ruling exists, it must be voluntarily disclosed by government counsel. However the issue that both prosecutors and defense lawyers have in reference to Brady v. Maryland ruling is it difficult for a prosecutor to decided whether certain evidence is exculpatory to a defendant. Unless a prosecutor can predict with a magic eight ball and wand exactly what a defendant’s defense will be during trial, they may not recognize an exculpatory significance of paperwork or evidence that the government is in possession
As people continue to respond to the killing of Michael Brown and the issue of police brutality. Many citizens of the United States say that putting body cameras on police would be a good solution. What people are trying to say is that the police do need cameras because for all the misleading and confusing stories. Americans want cameras on police to prevent any mix-up. Police brutality is a very serious issue and there are ways to resolve the issue.
Furthermore, everything should have been labeled and placed on an evidence log to ensure that it was the DNA from the actual crime scene. Although, it could have been Mr. Simpson DNA if the proper protocol had been followed they may have been able to get a guilty verdict on the double murder as well as a life sentence. I feel that given all of the fact and evidence in the case that the court did make the right decision. Unfortunately, if the evidence has been contaminated it cannot be used in court and that makes a big difference in a case. Therefore, this case showed the nation that if the evidence does not fit the crime than there is no possible way to find someone guilty of a crime because there is no physical evidence to prove that they actually committed the
As Pollitt says in The Nation, “… without a gun, it’s difficult to kill and injure a whole crowd of people, no matter how much you’d like to” (484.) Background checks are necessary to keep guns out of the hands of people who will do harm with them. Background checks should not be limited to stores. More should be included as well on the background checks being done. There is no reason they should not also be used in purchasing arsenal.