• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Supreme Court Cases   Unit 2 Ip
 

Supreme Court Cases Unit 2 Ip

on

  • 1,266 views

An extensive research will be done in this article on two U.S. Supreme Court cases that changed the way in which a Criminal Justice Agency conducts its activities. Both of these cases will be ...

An extensive research will be done in this article on two U.S. Supreme Court cases that changed the way in which a Criminal Justice Agency conducts its activities. Both of these cases will be explained with resulting opinions. You will also be able to see what changes it would force a department to make in the way it operates. The two U.S. Supreme Court Cases that will be used in this article are MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1996) and also TENNESSEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) the thesis for this article is “Confidence in both Genders of Humanity who administer the Judicial System have become the backbone of Law”

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,266
Views on SlideShare
1,266
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
8
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Supreme Court Cases   Unit 2 Ip Supreme Court Cases Unit 2 Ip Document Transcript

    • Running Head: COMPARING TWO SUPREME COURT CASES<br />Comparing Two Supreme Court Cases<br />Carla J. McCoy<br />Unit 2 Individual Projects – CRJ206<br />April 5th, 2009<br />American InterContinental University<br />Abstract<br />An extensive research will be done in this article on two U.S. Supreme Court cases that changed the way in which a Criminal Justice Agency conducts its activities. Both of these cases will be explained with resulting opinions. You will also be able to see what changes it would force a department to make in the way it operates. The two U.S. Supreme Court Cases that will be used in this article are MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1996) and also TENNESSEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) the thesis for this article is “Confidence in both Genders of Humanity who administer the Judicial System have become the backbone of Law”<br />Introduction<br />Sometimes court cases are won and sometimes they are lost, depending on the situation at hand. One thing we all must keep in mind here though is that no matter what case is being represented that all offenders and officers have rights. There are laws that not only offenders must follow but laws that officers must follow also. In my own personal opinion it’s good to have witnesses around when any arrest takes place because the offender then has some solid evidence as to whether the officer followed the laws. When both Genders of Humanity have Confidence they then become the backbone of Law because they uphold the law when necessary. The shooting of the boy in this article was unconstitutional and could have been prevented had the officer chosen the proper methods of handling the situation, however there are also times when officers must act in this manner because the offenders are out of hand and become a great danger not only to officers but other citizens as well. This article will show you some great examples of how cases can differ and what steps should be taken in these situations. (AIU Online, 2009)<br />Explanation of both Cases<br />When reviewing the Miranda v. Arizona case I found that the Defendants who were at the time still in police custody were first placed in a private room away from all citizens and questioned by detectives, police officers, and/or a prosecuting attorney. The Defendants were not read or given any warning of their rights during the outset of the interrogation process. Although there are four cases here, only three of them had signed statements. All four Defendants were questioned and all four gave oral admissions which were also admitted during trial. Each of the defendants was convicted with the exception of No. 584 and was affirmed on appeal. (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 1966)<br />Now when reviewing the Tennessee v. Garner case I found that you have to first take a look at a Tennessee statute prior to this particular case. A Tennessee statute provides that if an officer gives an offender the intent to arrest him/her and the offender tries to forcibly resist the arrest or begins to run and flees from the officer it then gives the officer all necessary means to effect the arrest. Now going back to the case at hand, it was suspected that the appellee-respondent Garner’s son burglarized a home after he fled over a fence at night in a backyard to get away from or flee the officer. Without the officer being “reasonably sure” that the suspect who was around 17 or 18 years old and of slight build was unarmed or not he proceeded to shoot and kill the suspect only after being told to halt. The son’s Father brought action in Federal District Court, seeking damages under 42 U.S. C § 1983 for violations of his son’s rights where the District Court presented that the officer’s actions under the Tennessee statute were constitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed. (Tennessee v. Garner, 471U.S. 1, 1985)<br />Resulting Opinions<br />The issue at hand at this particular time was that the Tennessee statute in force stated that after an officer gives notifies the offender that they have an intent to arrest them and the offender chooses to either flee or run, and/or forcibly resist arrest that then and only then may the officer use all necessary means to effect the arrest. What happened here was that under that Tennessee statute under authority the officer fired his fatal shot that hit the offender in the head which killed him; it then became unconstitutional in the fact that it authorized use of deadly force against an offender that was not dangerous, who was also unarmed. The offender that was fleeing was doing so to prevent from being arrested. The police officer’s reasoning was that he had no doubts that the offender would have gotten away had he jumped over the fence. (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 1985)<br />In the Miranda v. Garner case the issue at hand involved statements made by the defendants were used as incriminating evidence which was actually in violation of the 5th Amendment. No confession can be presumed to have been given free of duress with the given conditions of questioning and environment. Miranda Rights or Warnings should be given to the defendants as soon as they were arrested. If an offender chooses not to invoke their right to remain silent which happens in a lot of cases then they have that right. However, at any given time that the offender chooses to exercise that right and be represented this is the point where the interrogation must end. (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 1966)<br />Changes in Operation<br />In the Tennessee v. Garner case the court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional making the statement that force may be used to prevent escape only when the officer has probable cause in believing that the offender poses a highly significant threat of serious physical injury or death not only to the officer but to others, but not in the case just because the offender is simply fleeing. The results of this case are that it requires all police officers not to use deadly force with the exception of where it is a matter of kill or be killed. (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 1985)<br />In the Miranda v. Arizona case the US Supreme Court ruled that prior to interrogation that all offenders in custody must be clearly informed of their right to remain silent, and that anything said will be used against him/her in the court of law. All Offenders must also be advised that they have a right to an attorney and have his/her lawyer present with her during interrogation and if indigent that a lawyer will be appointed. As a result of the US Supreme Court decision, upon arrest, “Warning” or “Miranda Rights” are to be recited in the following manner: “You are under arrest. 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 have an attorney present and if you cannot afford one the court will appoint one to represent your interests. (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 1966)<br />Conclusion<br />In conclusion both of these cases have changed the way in which a criminal justice agency conducts its activities. The Confidence in both Genders of Humanity who administer the Judicial System have become the backbone of Law for without citizens to administer the Judicial System then can you imagine where we would be? Laws have to be upheld whether you are a Citizen or an Officer and if these laws are not followed the great consequences can occur right inside our own court rooms which can affect the rest of the world. (AIU Online, 2009) <br />References<br />Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966) Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona Syllabus<br /> U. S. Court Forms retrieved on April 5th, 2009 from: http://supreme.justia.com/us/384/436/case.html<br />Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, (1985) Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the<br /> Sixth Circuit Syllabus U.S. Court Forms retrieved on April 5th, 2009 from: http://supreme.justia.com/us/471/1/case.html<br />AIU Online, (2009) Management Theories Class American InterContinental University CRJ206<br /> Classroom Unit 2 Individual Project, retrieved on April 5th, 2009 from: https://mycampus.aiu-online.com <br />