WARRANTS, SEARCHES, SEIZURES,& RIGHTS

Fig.1 source:http://blog.kir.com/archives/exclusionary%20rule.gif

In the case of Bradley Harrison, the evidence was taken even though it was found during an unreasonable search. Mr. Harrison was caught driving from Toronto to Vancouver with more than 77 pounds of cocaine in his rental car. The police officer pulled him over because he was missing his front license plate. From there the officer proceeded to search his vehicle and found the narcotics. The judge stated that the officer’s conduct was brazen and flagrant to Mr. Harrison’s rights but yet they sentenced him to 5 years in prison. In the US the evidence would have been thrown out because of the 4th amendment which is bans unlawful search and seizure. The US is the only country that suppresses physical evidence due to police misconduct.
Breyer’s statement was “the exclusion of evidence is a deterrent to police misconduct”. I agree with this because it is deterrent. You can find something on someone such as drugs or illegal weapons; but if you have not found it without reasonable cause of searching, it is not able to be used as evidence in a court case. I however do not agree with the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule prevents those who need to go to prison from going to prison. If you get pulled over and an officer finds drugs in your car but didn’t have reasonable cause to search your car, you get off free. Why is that? Taking in that one person for drugs can save a lot more people later. It may be an amendment to ban unreasonable search and seizure, but wrong is wrong and those people should pay for their wrongs.






Fig.2 source:http://troydooly.com/wp-content/themes/visionary/images/stop-children-porn.jpg

Eric Achenbach and his wife lived on a property in Brattleboro. Eric didn't have any postings on his property with the "intention to exclude" such as fences or barriers. He also did not have any "no tresspassing" signs posted on his property. In the back of his home, Eric had a platform for a wooden tent built in the woods. One day two deer hunters found Achenbach's hidden child pornography under some loose boards of the platform. Three days later, one of the deer hunters called the police. The police didn't have a search warrant when they obtained the child porn as evidence. Brattleboro District Court Judge Katherine Hayes , claimed that the police didn't need a search warrant because Eric didn't have any postings to exclude the public from his property. She also states that the police did not violate Eric's constitutional rights. The evidence in this case was allowed and the officers didn't obtain a search warrant before hand because they didn't feel the neccessity of a search warrant. I believe that this case in a Plain View warrantless search. In consideration of the property not having postings to exclude tresspassers from the land, makes the evidence in plain view and accessible for anyone to find.



Fig.3 source:http://www.dominickrusso.com/images/miranda_rights_card.jpg

The purpose of the Miranda Warning or the Miranda Rule is to warn suspects or crimnials during their arrest that they hace the right to remain silent and that anything they say can and will be used against them in the court of law.The Miranda Warning protects the 14th and 15th amendment. The picture above explains how the Miranda Warning works. However there are still some ways that police can obtain statements from the accused. Below are some examples in which police have obtained illegal statements from accused.

1. "A suspect can be questioned in the field without a Miranda warning if the information the police seek is needed to protect public safety” (Siegel, 2009). This would happen if a weapon is involved with the situation.
2."An attorney's request to see the defendant does not affect the validity of the defendant's waiver of the right to counsel”(Siegel, 2009). If you are in jail and you attorney asks to speak to you your responses are no longer under the Miranda Law.
3.If you are in jail and you tell the officers that you "might" want an attorney they still have the right to question you. If a lawyer comes to defend you and you did not give consent, no matter what you said before your lawyer came will be used against you in the court of law.

RESOURCES


Smallherr,S.(2009) Court Says Child Porn Seizure is Legal. . Retrieved October 11, 2009. We Are Vermont. Web site: http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20090916/NEWS02/909160324/1003/NEWS02

Siegel, L.J. (2009). Introduction to criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

Lason, A. (2000, March). Miranda rights. Retrieved from http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/miranda_rights.html