Watch the following video and apply your knowledge to the scenario below:
https://lawshelf.com:8443/videos/entry/fourth-amendment-exceptions-to-the-warrant-requirement-part-i
Scenario: A man was at his brother’s apartment when the police arrived. The police flashed a paper that they indicated was a warrant but was actually a court order for an unrelated case and asked to search the apartment. The man allowed the police to proceed with a search and drugs were discovered. The man’s brother (the tenant) was charged with possession of drugs. The defendant (the man’s brother/tenant) contends this search violated his Fourth Amendment rights and should not be admissible due to the Exclusionary Rule. Was the man’s consent valid? Or did he truly consent?
Watch the following video and apply your knowledge to the scenario below:
https://lawshelf.com:8443/videos/entry/fourth-amendment-warrant-requirement-exceptions-part-ii?TimeIndex=9
Scenario: Police received a report that three women in Halloween costumes had robbed a man in his house and stole money and jewelry from him. He lived on an island with only one ferry transporting people back and forth to the city and there was only one more transport that evening. Without getting a warrant, the police stopped all cars waiting on the ferry. In one car, three women were acting nervously when the police peered in their car. The police decided to search their car and found the victim’s stolen jewelry under the front seat. The women were immediately placed under arrest. Was the officers’ warrantless search valid or not? Explain your answer.
Examining Case Law: Miranda v. Arizona, 384, U.S. 436 (1966).
Almost everyone who has watched a crime drama on television can recall at least one pivotal moment, perhaps at the episodes climax, when a suspect is arrested and his rights are read to him. Many Americans can recite these legal warnings from memory, even though few have ever been arrested or interrogated by police officers. Officers have not always been required to inform individuals of their right to remain silent and other legal protections. This was mandated through a Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384, U.S. 436 (1966), a decision that many in law enforcement said would prevent them from ever gaining another voluntary confession. Though controversial at the time, requiring officers to Mirandize (provide legal warnings to) an individual seems rather clich today. Read more about the facts of this case at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=384&invol=436 . After reading about this landmark case (and reviewing the video on Miranda posted under “Readings and Lectures”, answer the following questions:
What is the constitutional issue being decided in this case (as delineated by Chief Justice Warren in section I)?
When is it necessary for officers to read an individual his or her rights?
What are the benefits and drawbacks associated with this decision?
