Civil Liberties and the Supreme Court
This is an excerpt from the paper...
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with its ban on "unreasonable searches and seizure," is the constitutional provision that, more directly than any other, governs police operations and administrative investigations (Hall. 1992). The Amendment emerges as one element in the effort to clarify the rights of individuals vis-à-vis governmental powers by balancing these rights against the legitimate need of society, doing so through its authorized governmental agencies in order to secure and maintain order and to execute the law. The Amendment is, according to some analysts, problematic in that it gives very limited details on how to deal with numerous search situations (Hall, 1992). Other Amendments (e.g., the 6th, 8th, and 14th) have also been addressed by the Courts in pursuit of confirmation of suspects' rights and the limits of state power. Because this is the case, numerous Supreme Court rulings have been handed down in the past several decades in an effort to clarify the extent of protection accorded to individuals suspected of illegal actions and the corresponding power of law enforcement and other agencies to obtain evidence from or about these individuals. Beginning with the Warren Court's 1961 ruling in Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 IU.S. 643, the Court has moved toward excessive attention to the rights of suspects in this and other areas while diminishing the capacity of the police and other agencies to execute their duties. Several Court rulings illustrat
. . .
arrant. It appeared to be backing down from Mapp to a degree by adopting a lower standard for satisfying the 4th Amendment (Hall, 1992).
Yet another 4th Amendment case was heard by the Court in Kaupp v. Texas (2003) 538 U.S. 636 (Kaupp v. Texas, 2003). In this case, the Court held that the circumstances under which defendant Kaupp was "seized" were unconstitutional and that consequently the evidence and confession obtained should not be admitted at trial. This affirmed the exclusionary rule set in Mapp and further limited the power of the State to obtain evidence during a search. The case has the effect, perhaps unintended, of reducing the capacity of the police to employ probable cause. It also suggests that by handcuffing the defendant and bringing him to the station for questioning, the police erred in that no "reasonable person" in Kaupp's position would have understood that he was free to leave or otherwise terminate the encounter. Any confession obtained under such circumstances, said the Court, must be excluded at trial. Here, again, the rights of the defendant were affirmed and the authority of police undermined.
In Robinson v. California (1962) 370 U.S. 660, a constitutional law making it illegal to be a dru
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, Kaupp Texas, Terry Ohio, Amendment Constitution, Amendments Hall, Mapp Ohio, North Carolina, Amendments Constitution, Robinson Court, Justices Constitution, hall 1992, court held, 4th amendment, cruel unusual punishment, cruel unusual, unusual punishment, drug addiction, supreme court, law enforcement, speedy trial, individual rights, hall 1992 court, violation 4th amendment, amendment hall 1992, free cruel unusual,
Approximate Word count = 1438
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Civil Liberties and the Supreme Court
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
