Criminology

According to our given definition as well as outside definitions, a motion to suppress is a request to a judge to keep out evidence at a trial or hearing, often made when a party believes the evidence was unlawfully obtained (Motion to Suppress). In this situation, it must be asked whether or not the police officer unlawfully obtained the confession from Mr. Walker. Miranda Rights require law enforcement to advise an individual being arrested that heshe has the right to remain silent and that anything said can and will be used against you in a court of law (The Miranda Warnings 2008). In the case presented here, Mr. Walker was not being arrested when he confessed however, from the description of the scene the police officer came upon, it is pretty clear that Mr. Walker was involved in some way or another therefore making him a suspect. The police officer knows he will be bringing Mr. Walker in for questioning and should have read him his rights beforehand. Asking the question What happened provokes a response from Mr. Walker knowing full well that Mr. Walkers answer will most likely incriminate himself in some way. Mr. Walker is covered in blood and holding the knife, hes obviously done something and should immediately be taken into custody and have read his rights. Even if Mr. Walker confessed before his rights could be read, the police officer would still need to read him his rights and question him at the station.

With this in mind it would appear that the information was unlawfully obtained because it was obtained prior to Mr. Walker being read his rights and advised that he has a right to say nothing at all. The judge will have to rule in favor of the motion to suppress the evidence and the confession made at that particular moment will have to be thrown out as it was in fact unlawfully given to the police officer.

The Plain View Doctrine is an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent general searches.  As a result, it creates a general rule to the effect that searches and seizures demand a warrant describing the places to be searched and the evidence to be seized with a certain degree of specificity.  The warrant requirement, however, is not absolute.  The United States Supreme Court has held in a variety of cases that there are special circumstances, or factual scenarios, in which the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement does not apply.  The Plain View Doctrine is one such exception.  It is extraordinarily significant in law and criminology because evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment can be suppressed and is therefore inadmissible against a defendant in a criminal case.  It is therefore law the police and the prosecution that seek to establish the elements of the Plain View Doctrine to avoid a defendants motion for suppression, thereby being allowed to present the evidence or contraband seized in plain view at trial and the burden of proof is on the prosecution.   The burden of proof is on the prosecution because the Supreme Court has consistently stated that warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable (Horton v. California, 1990, p. 133). The basic standard governing the applicability of this doctrine has recently been restated and affirmed in both in Horton v. California and Minnesota v. Dickerson.

This standard provides that the Fourth Amendment does not apply when certain requirements have been established.  First, the prosecution must establish that the police saw the evidence sought to be admitted while they were in a lawful position.  Police lawfully in a persons house or stopping a car, for instance, are entitled to pursue a plain view argument on the other hand, if a defendant can rebut the police assertion related to being lawfully in position then the exception is unavailable.  Second, the incrimination character of the item must be immediately apparent (Horton v. California, 1990, p. 137).  This emphasizes the plain feature of the doctrine and means that police cannot simply fish for evidence under the pretext that evidence or contraband was found and later discovered to be relevant to a criminal charge or prosecution.  Immediacy is important.  Finally, assuming the police had a legally justifiable type of access to the evidence or contraband, they can make a seizure pursuant to the Plain View Doctrine that does not violate the Fourth Amendment.  The policy rationale underlying this exception is fairly sound the basic notion is that, although people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in various places and circumstances, that The rationale of the plain-view doctrine is that if contraband is left in open view and is observed by a police officer from a lawful vantage point, there has been no invasion of a legitimate expectation of privacy and thus no search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment (Minnesota v. Dickerson, 1993, p. 375).  The Fourth Amendment, designed to protect reasonable spheres of privacy, need not apply when this policy rationale is absent.  Significantly, as the majority noted in the Horton case, the sighting of evidence in plain view no longer needs to be of an accidental or inadvertent nature thus, police can use the Plain View Doctrine offensively as well as defensively so long as the establish the underlying substantive elements.

The Plain View Doctrine is greatly complicated by the fact that it has been applied in cases involving touch or feel as well as sight.  This would seem to contradict the essential nature of the exception, but the policy rationale is consistent and the doctrine has been harmonized with related criminal procedure issues such as Terry searches.  In Minnesota v. Dickerson, for example, the United States Supreme Court held that tactile discoveries of contraband were covered by the Plain View Doctrine so long as the doctrines elements were proven (1993, p. 375).  What emerges from an analysis of these cases is the fact that the policy objectives seem to influence the Supreme Court more than technical distinctions based on sight, touch, or smell.  It might be better, without being facetious, to rename this the Plain Senses Doctrine to better characterize its modern meaning and reach.

In conclusion, the Plain View Doctrine is heavily litigated and extraordinarily important in a criminal context because it can mean the difference between seized evidence being admitted and seized evidence being suppressed or excluded.  The doctrine has been expanded over time, though all cases are heavily dependent on the underlying facts, and the philosophical and policy considerations focus on reasonable expectations related to privacy in a variety of settings.  It seems, given the purpose of the Fourth Amendment, a comparatively wise exception.

The U.S. Constitution provides for the respect of all citizens privacy and freedom from arbitrary invasions. Everyone has the right to privacy which should not be assaulted through searches by law enforcement agents or other government employees unless there is a probable cause. Unless under extraordinary circumstances, law enforcement agents are expected to seek the consent to search from the owners of the property to be searched. Evidence gathered through involuntary searches is often inadmissible in court.

Consent to Search
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated This provision ensures that government employees do not assault peoples right to privacy unnecessarily or without following the laid-down procedures (Legal Information Insitute, n.d).

It is common for law enforcement agents to seek court warrants to search a property suspected to host criminal activity or to endanger the safety of the general public. There are however instances in which the government employees or law enforcement agents neither need nor seek for a probable cause or a search warrant in order to search someones property. Such a circumstance could arise when an individual gives the officers the free and voluntary consent to search the premises or property. It must be noted that the individual must not be put under pressure to give the consent as this would render the search unreasonable and any evidence gathered during an involuntary search can be dismissed by the courts. Individuals should therefore be reminded of their right to refuse to give the consent upfront or to revoke the consent during the search process. The search is supposed to be discontinued as soon as the individual withdraws the consent. The right to withdraw consent may however be unacceptable during passenger screenings at the airport. Although evidence collected during an involuntary search can be dismissed in court, the same evidence can be used against the individual if the consent was given voluntarily.

When individuals give the consent for their property to be searched, they practically and voluntarily waive their Fourth Amendment rights to allow the officers to conduct a search. A law enforcement agent or other government employee should not be the one to withdraw these rights from the individuals using such techniques as coercion or deceit.

The consent to search a property or premises can only be given by individuals who are the ones to be searched, the registered owners of the property, have the authority to give or decline to give consent for the search, or a combination of the factors (Strickland, 1966). For instance, a traffic police officer who intends to search a vehicle which is being driven not by the registered owner but by another person may seek consent to search the vehicle from the driver or from the registered owner. An individual may not give consent to officers to search anothers property. Hotel managements, although reserving the right to enter occupied hotel rooms for hotel-related business, may not give the consent to search an occupants property.

Third party consent may be sought and accepted on condition that the property to be searched is shared, meaning that the consenting party shares authority to give consent to the search. This is particularly common among room-mates who may share equal authority to give consent for a search. One party can give consent to a search even when the other party is physically absent. The situation gets complicated when one party gives consent while the other objects. In such instances, it is required that the objecting parties express their objection prior to the search (Williams, 2007).

Law enforcement has always been surrounded by unethical issues concerning the manner in which the law enforcers carryout their duties. There have been several allegations that the law enforcement officers use the powers conferred on them by their positions to oppress the citizens. The most ethical issues associated with law enforcements include corruption, arresting of people unreasonably, delaying in prosecuting the arrested individuals and conducting partial investigations. In virtually all instances of unethical conduct on law enforcement, they result in treating people unjustly.

Unethical issues in law enforcement
The law enforcers have more powers as compared to the common citizens they are given these powers in order to ensure that they are in a good position of maintaining law and order in their areas of jurisdiction. However, some of the law enforcement officers misuse these powers by oppressing the very citizens they ought to protect using the same powers. Abuse of power by the law enforcement officers have been one of the greatest unethical conducts which has affected law enforcement for ages. Corruption is also an unethical behavior that has for several years been closely associated with the law enforcement. People arrested or facing various charges in the criminal justice system are made to bribe the law enforcement officers in order to be granted freedom in an unjust manner. This is an unethical behavior that mostly favors the offenders with the financial resources for bribing the officers. However, for the victims who have limited financial resources, they have to remain in police custodies or continue being charged with various crimes. Corruption therefore makes law to appear to be enforceable only on the poor citizens while the rich ones are rarely charged or prosecuted. This vice is therefore used as a means of perpetrating discrimination.

Investigations are supposed to be conducted promptly so that the suspects being held in police custodies awaiting their trials can have their cases heard and either found guilty or released. However, in most cases, investigations are usually carried out slowly making the suspects who have been waiting for their trials to be held for a long period of time and thus denying them their freedom. The unethical behavior of delaying justice leads to injustice on the part of the suspects who are unlawfully denied justice. In other cases, the law enforcers conduct partial or incomprehensive investigations in many cases. Due to the fact that the evidence that is provided by the law enforcers is very essential when cases are being determined, partial investigations have the effect of misleading the courts of law and thus the sentences passed by such courts are wrong since they are based on incomplete investigations.

Conclusion
Unethical conduct in the law enforcement brings about injustice in the criminal justice system. The unethical conducts in law enforcement have for a long period of time affected several people negatively. One of the main objectives of law enforcement is ensuring that there is justice for all people of all walks of life. It is also supposed to ensure that everyone is well protected by the law and that there is law and order in the country. However, due to the presence of unethical behaviors in the field of law enforcement, these objectives are rarely achieved. Because the objectives of law enforcement are very important in the administration of justice, these unethical conducts must be eliminated for the chief objectives to be realized and hence ensure justice for all people regardless of their status in the society.

In different parts of the world, people from various races hold different perspectives against the police. Generally, police force has faced criticism from nationals of diverse origin. It is important to disclosure the source of such criticism so that leaders come up with strategies of better services. There are various factors which determine the racial attitudes towards the police.

Difference in attitudes towards the police can be dictated by factors attributed to locality and the surroundings. Many cities and the surrounding in the US have formed groups that campaign and facilitate balance in policing. These groups compel the politicians to make reforms that allow for change in police acts and values. According to Holmes  Goodman (2007), minority groups usually have a bad attitude towards the police. It is also known that, people living in areas with high crime rate hold negative attitude towards the police. More so, delayed police response duration (in an area as opposed to another) during emergency makes people feel dissatisfied. In localities where police are corrupt and incompetent, locals are dissatisfied. People who have high trust in Government also exhibit confidence in police force. In essence, a race may belief the police if there are more collective resources within the community.

In addition, there are factors associated to the policing force that decide race attitude. In area where community policing is practiced, locals have confidence in the police. In areas where police exhibit professionalism and interact with community members, public confidence increases.

Finally, there are factors attributed to an individual which determine race attitude towards the police. Individuals factors are ethnicity of an individual, how old is an individual, education and financial status of a person. Well educated and high earning individuals from a minority community hold a negative view to the police. They usually see police dealing with different communities in myriad styles. The language used by a police officer and treatment given decides the community view of the force. Human gender may also determine how the community views police force in that, a certain gender may feel mistreated and hold a low opinion to the force .

It is therefore concluded that, there are many factors (which may not be alike in different communities) which determine a race attitude towards the police.

Law enforcers have a code of conduct to observe when carrying out their duties. They should apply necessary force when restoring order or arresting suspects, practice diplomacy, keep confidentiality, high moral standards and always show respect for their career. Therefore, the duty of police officers is to serve the community and contribute to its security and development. They should also observe the rights of the ones they serve with attention to freedom, impartiality and fairness. Police officers should conduct themselves in a respectable manner when in duty or not. This is to show boldness, self esteem, good manners and sincerity. It is important that they observe the rule of the law and collaborate with other law enforcers. However, the officers often find themselves breaking their code of ethics.

Corruption is a major problem facing police officers and this is an indication of dishonesty. In additions, it lowers public opinion against them leading to mistrust. Corruption may consist of taking gratuities, collaborating with gangs and banned sects, leaking of important information, false signing of documents, racism, harassment, sexual misuse of people, and refusal to observe the law in general among others.

Law enforcers are also known for their brutality when dealing with suspects. They are found using excessive force which might and even injure or kill the suspects. In essence, this is a breach of the law and it should be condemned.

An ethical problem may arise when police officers feel victimized. This is because the police officers are usually under the control of their bosses and due to nature of their job, they are always at risk. As a result, they may tend to omit their duties leading to reduced output and opposition to authorities. The officers may then start committing some mistakes and even involving themselves in criminal activities. As the events follow, accountability is lost and officers feel like they are above the law. Finally, trustworthiness and integrity is lost.

In conclusion, news about the police moral decay in terms of bribery, conciliation and integrity are on the rise. The issues of investigating, and punishing officers for unethical conduct should be reviewed and more proactive measures taken.

If any two commodities, say sand and sugars weighing one kilogram each, are dictated to cost same amount, regardless of their utility, then be it. By this analogy, if the human race is taken as consisting of equals by law, then they should be valued equally without considering the race and color. It is only the standardization authority and the judicial system that implements these policies respectively. It is then illogical to purport to be fighting racism if the law in place is not to this effect. Ultimately therefore, the solution to an antiracism campaign lies in the law law that is colorblind in meting its decisions.

Equality The Solution lies in the Legal Order.
Resultants from the existing world order, very explicit laws have been put in place to ease inequality and racism. However these laws are mere documents of public relations. Look at the American justice system for example, it is assumed that all are treated equally, yet color is seen as a property in the judicial process. Though these racial acts emanate from history, why should there be legislation for the mere sake of it

The scale, scope and the extremes of negative consequence  both direct and collateral  for communities of color are new, especially for women, but the role of criminal justice in policing, prosecuting, imprisoning and executing people of color has deep historical roots. What is now new is the racist and classist economic and political agenda that is fundamental. The paradigm shift from essentialist to color blind and the practices of oppression are defined and renamed, but the resulting inequality remains much the same. The law and its attendant machinery were, and still are, enforcers of both white supremacy and capitalist interest.

It is indeed, down hearting to note that the law today seems to have been meant for the whites, the rich white to be precise. While present the policy outline in itself appears quite appealing, its mere old wine in a new wine skin.

The argument according to Harris (1993) that it was nature that was putting the blacks in this state was not well construed (p. 118). His argument that the courts were simply supporting this complicitly and explicitly shows the generally degraded black status. It is believed in America that for one to relive the dwindling economic status of a business, then white labor is the solution. Ultimately the implication here is that black labor however professionally similar to white labor, is cheap. Two issues come into play here, that blacks are underpaid in man-hours, and that they are second rate. Indeed it can only be through political struggle and radical civic education that the prevailing situation can be transformed to attain social justice.

Role of the Law in Attaining Social Justice
Ideally, every individual is not guilty until proven otherwise. However, looking at the American law, relative to the riots in Los Angeles, suspects were forced to stay in detention and were not given any a chance to get a counsel. Besides, the suspects were in some cases tried without enough evidence. Evidently the law did not take its place. To attain social justice, the intervention by the law is mandatory and inevitable. Essentially, while riots were not good for national peace and cohesion, individual justice should reign supreme. Ironically, while the justice systems ultimate goal was sustained tranquility, the way the detainees were treated increased pressure on the national security system.

Moreover the pressures of organizational maintenance in major riot situations were amplified by increased pressures for legitimation in these events, and thus for adherence to formal legal rationality. The very scale of the riots and the resulting public attention to the way rioters were handled by the courts increased, rather than decreased, the pressures to adhere to formal legal procedures once the immediate threat had.

Then, by this assertion, legality lacks in total. Besides, his assertion that the judge has discretion in deciding the bail level, I am of the feeling that, this discretion should be exercised in a non racist and non feminist manner.

Most importantly therefore, in attaining equality, law is the solution. Firstly, by the feminist and the racist theory, legislation should be put in place that will make the justice system itself non racist and non feminist. Those involved in the legal process should be of proven integrity. Secondly, by the critical race theory, we should openly demonize racism through our talking and conversing. This, the theory asserts, will lead to a better world. Besides, as much as possible we should try to make our interest as convergent, both black and white. Forthwith therefore, the details for the lives of the minority will form a good basis for strategizing on the nations civil rights. And as a wrap up, the colonial mastery believes should be pushed to the back of our mind. Legislation to this effect will achieve this challenging yet possible goal of equality.