Constitutional Rights-Finalpol303

Constitutional Rights-Finalpol303 - Constitutional Rights 1...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Constitutional Rights 1 Constitutional Rights: And Justice for All? By Kimberly Morano POL303 Professor Knox October 4, 2010
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Constitutional Rights 1 Introduction There are certain limitations of power that the government has over U.S. citizens. The constitution states that citizens of the U.S. have certain constitutional rights before an arrest, after an arrest, as well as post-conviction. If a case against a defendant is not properly executed, then there is a very good chance that the defendant can get away with whatever crime has been committed. Although there are some cases where a defendant is not guilty and is punished for the crime charged, more often there are guilty persons set free on a technicality. With all of the constitutional rights available to citizens, it can be difficult at times to give the guilty their due punishment. Summary In a case of a kidnapping from 1964, of two young black boys that were hitchhiking, James Ford Seale was finally convicted for his role in the kidnapping and slaying of them. The problem is that the case has been open for over 40 years and while now there is a witness to testify that he was part of the kidnapping and slaying of these boys, the statute of limitations has runs out and this man may now get away with this crime. In a landmark case of Mapp v. Ohio in 1961, the police entered the home of Dollree Mapp with a search warrant. Upon entering, the officers merely waived the warrant in front of Ms. Mapp, without her really getting a good look at it. The officers found many other things, just not things that were on the warrant. She was arrested for these other things, but was later freed because the officers illegally seized material in the search and the evidence was inadmissible. In United States v. Cha case, officers seized a residence of the defendant until they
Background image of page 2
Constitutional Rights 1 were able to get a search warrant. This ordeal began on a Sunday morning and the police obtained a warrant on Monday morning. At the time, it was not thought of about how much time had gone by and what a reasonable time frame was to wait for a search warrant. Because of the length of time gone by while waiting for the warrant the evidence found was suppressed and was considered inadmissible in court. In Missouri, there was a case against a counselor that stated that he was exposing himself to young boys in an elementary school restroom. Although the counselor, Mr. Beine, is a former Catholic Priest that was removed from the priesthood in 1977 following allegations of sexual misconduct, the charges brought about in this case were dismissed because of lack of sufficient evidence. Also, the court found that the state statute under which Mr. Beine was convicted is unconstitutional because it was overbroad. In another case in St. Louis, Johnny Briscoe was convicted of a sexual attack on a
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 12/28/2010 for the course POL POL303 taught by Professor Knox during the Fall '10 term at Ashford University.

Page1 / 12

Constitutional Rights-Finalpol303 - Constitutional Rights 1...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online