Consent Decree Project: - Essay Example

The key word is reasonable (p.198), because a person’s home is recognized to be his/her castle. It also protects residents from law enforcers who can abuse their authority by breaking into the privacy of a person’s home (p.197). In order for lawyers, prisoners, relatives of prisoners, and law enforcers to have a future basis for saying what is reasonable and what is not reasonable, there should have been a wriiten disclosure about the judgement pertaining to the 4th Amendment to educate all the parties involved about “reasonableness” of law enforcement and the protection of civil rights to privacy and security.

For example, the Court of Appeals can teach the Plaintiff the following facts: (a) That law enforcers should first secure a search warrant, except under certain conditions (p.199); (b) That the conditions include the existence of an exigency which will justify the law enforcer’s bypass of such a procedure to secure a search warrant and which will prove that getting one is not practical or not possible for the success of law enforcement (p.199). According to Maclin, T. (1993, p. . But there were standard operating procedures approved by government with regards to maintaining and inspecting the prison cells, which allowed the Jail Officers to discover possible evidences.

Although such evidences should not be used in court since they were obtained without a search warrant, those materials can be used to guide the cross examination and to add to the lead for the discovery of murdered bodies (in the case of Jack Jones) as well as for the next steps of law enforcement to discover more users of contraban cigarettes within the Adelphi County Jail. In other words, the Jail Officers had reasonable grounds to do their routine work in connection with law enforcement. These facts should have been made clear to the prisoners, their lawyers, relatives, and friends in order to promote not only law enforcement but also discipline for those who come across this case.

Policies and procedures were made known to all parties involved in the case of Jack Jones and Joe Johnson. The details of said policies and procedures actually upheld the right of Jail Officers to inspect prison cells under various scenarios, including the actual scenario when the latest inspections took place. In the matter of violating the 5th amendment, the decision of the Court of Appeals was not clarified as to who won the case and why. There should have been qualifications stating whether or not the accused are guilty of violating the rights of both prisoners not to incriminate themselves.

Although they were able to utilize a lawyer to present their defence, the lower court was able to convict Jack Jones via the use of evidence confiscated from the prison cell. Documents were said to be for use of the Defence Lawyer. But the lower