U.S. Supreme Court Case On Police Misconduct Essay

1. Case Name. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith 2. Year Case Decided by the Supreme Court. 1990 3. Facts that Triggered the Dispute. Alfred Smith and Galen Black, both members of the Native American Church were fired from their jobs as counselors at a drug rehabilitation center on the basis of misconduct for ingesting Peyote at a religious ritual. Peyote is a powerful hallucinogen and a “controlled substance under Oregon Law”, illegal to possess without a

* The Law Enforcement Code of Ethics is felt to achieve bringing about self-respect among officers; contributing to feelings of mutual respect among police, and contributing to the professional image of law enforcement. * Police legal duties can arise from many sources, including laws, customs, court decisions, and agency policies * A police officer cannot add to his or her list of probable cause used to make an arrest after effecting the arrest. * The Ecoterrorist group is responsible

Our court system has imposed a few restrictions as to what LEOs can do to gain incriminating type statements from criminal suspects without violating their rights. Our Sixth Amendment has restrictions in place that holds officers responsible for how they obtain confessions from suspects. One example of that is the case of “Massiah v. United States (1964), where the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to counsel in all formal

African Americans at the hands of the police. It is true that each of the stories surrounding these men is different, but the one unifying theme is that police around the country are interpreting our Constitutional rights in a way that is insufficient to protect African Americans and the population in general. This paper will explore one Constitutional right— the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures--and examine how one Supreme Court decision that narrowed the scope of

possibility the court will find the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (U.S. Cons.) In order for the court to find a lack

Introduction 2 Police Ethics 2 Corruption 3 Police Corruption 3 Police Discretion in Ethics 4 Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement 4 Types of Police Corruption 4 Ethics in the Courtroom 5 Prosecuting Attorneys 5 Defense Attorneys 5 Ethics in Police Training 6 Closing 6 Introduction Ethics by definition states that it’s the study of morality. Ethics are the basis of our criminal justice system. From the arresting officers who take an oath to serve and protect, to the attorneys and courts, we assume the

it is the primary source of the prosecutor’s evidence. When a suspect is brought into police custody to obtain a confession or a statement, police officers are required to read the Miranda warning if they believe the confession will be used to convict the suspect. The constitutional basis for the Miranda warning and the conditions for a voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights were announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda v. Arizona, announced June, 13 1966, resolved four

disappeared 16-year-old white schoolgirl. The police officer did not have to look for the real killer just because as he stated: "One of you two is gonna hang for this since you're the nigger, you're elected."( Bedau, 2012). Clarence Brandley was convicted of killing the girl base on his skin color. Moreover, in 1990, Brandley was freed by the Supreme Court after ten years on death row for being a black American. In Batson v. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that it is unconstitutional to exclude

Exclusionary Rule, with its first appearance in the case, Boyd v. United States in 1886. Weeks v. United States will show a better-established, stronger version of the exclusionary rule. Another expansion of the rule will be described by the Mapp v. Ohio case. In this paper, I will also state and describe the four primary exceptions to the exclusionary rule: Inevitable Discovery Doctrine,

whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork