Reply to Classmates
Dear Rivera,
I enjoyed reading your post, which I found very insightful. In your post, you have done an excellent job discussing the provisions of the Fourth Amendment and exploring the social costs and benefits of the new reality which pertains to police officers having more opportunities to abuse the knock-announce search warrants. I would like to add more arguments to your position. For instance, I think the ruling in the cases under review may enhance public security. Imagine what happens when a criminal is left scot-free not as a result of law enforcement officers blundering but because the police scrupulously adhered to the governing law. This is what could have happened in Davis v. United States – 564 U.S. 229, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011). On the other hand, the ruling in the cases under review may encourage ineptness among the police. The ruling in Hudson v. Michigan – 547 U.S. 586, 126 S. Ct. 2159 (2006) prohibited the suppression of evidence collected in the process of the implementation of knock and announce search warrants. Using this ruling, the police may seek to obtain and execute a knock and announce search warrant when they do not have probable cause hoping to get any piece of evidence inside the suspect’s resident to justify their shoddy work.
References
Davis v. United States – 564 U.S. 229, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011). Retrieved from https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-davis-v-united-states-1160609879
Hudson v. Michigan – 547 U.S. 586, 126 S. Ct. 2159 (2006). Retrieved from https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-hudson-v-michigan
Dear (State the name of the student who wrote the second post),
Your post is very informative as it demonstrates that you understand the provisions of the sixth and fifth amendments as well as the court’s ruling in Miranda v. Arizona and its implications. However, you failed to answer the question pertaining to the constitutional rights and societal values that must be balanced against each other, according to Miranda v. Arizona. On this note, Miranda v. Arizona (1966) made it clear that the public safety and protection of the rights of the accused or suspect must be balanced against each other. Besides, you have stated that Miranda v. Arizona (1966) only involved the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. However, this is not entirely true. This is because the case also includes the 14th Amendment. According to the National Constitutional Center (2017), Miranda v. Arizona (1966) involved the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. The 14th Amendment adds more weight to the 5th and 6th Amendments when it comes to the protection of suspects. The 14th Amendment guarantees Americans due process and equal protection whenever they are accused of violating the constitution (Library of Congress, n. d.). Miranda was denied his equal protection and due process rights.
References
Library of Congress. (n. d.). 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution: Primary documents in American History. Retrieved from https://guides.loc.gov/14th-amendment
National Constitutional Center. (2017). The Miranda warning is created 52 years ago today. Retrieved from https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-miranda-warning-is-born-47-years-ago-today