Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Compose a 750 words essay on Journal on text ch 11 and 12 and 5 court case reviews. Needs to be plagiarism free!However, Ernesto was not granted the rights, and. therefore, he might have been innocent
Compose a 750 words essay on Journal on text ch 11 and 12 and 5 court case reviews. Needs to be plagiarism free!
However, Ernesto was not granted the rights, and. therefore, he might have been innocent.
Chapter 12 of Rolando V. Del Carmen’s book, Criminal Procedures Law and Practices, talks about legal liabilities, as well as other consequences of police misconduct. Police officers, according to the chapter, tend to act unethically and conduct unlawfully behavior thinking that since they are the law enforces, they cannot be punished. However, this chapter discusses the deeds of what happens to an officer who exploits the law (Carmen, 2009)
This topic is extremely influential as it informs normal citizens what to do in case they come across such matter for instance when an officer asks for a bribe. Officers must, at all time, act with integrity as they as the main protectors of this nation.
Dickerson v. United States upheld the obligation that the Miranda notice should be read to criminal suspects. The case also advocated that the Miranda warning be struck down a central statute, which purported to cancel Miranda v. Arizona (Carmen, 2009). The Supreme Court noted that neither side in the case advocated in support of the law of 18 U.S.C. § 3501, the precise act at issue in this case.
I disagree with the decision of this case to override Miranda. Miranda was a constitutional rule. Therefore, a person should not be charged if they were not read to their Miranda rights before the arrest. Miranda is also a constitutional requirement and should not be removed.
North Carolina v Butler refers to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court whereby the Court regarded the position of a criminal suspect who recognizes his or her right to stay put or remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona or is aware he or she has the right to stay put, but does not openly waive or invoke the right. The Court confirmed that unless the suspect stated that he/she was depending on that right, his successive voluntary statements might be used in court (Carmen, 2009).
Griffin v.
