The Knock and Announce Rule - Case Study Example

Law Question Two It is argued that when the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) came into been, thousands of people were infected and a dozen more died. Additionally, majority of people living in the United States aged between 25 and 35 years were the most affected and there was cause for alarm. This meant that the United States was at vague of losing the young, energetic and productive population. As a result, Schneider and Ingram made a concern on the advancement of the epidemic and came up with a parsimonious model that consisted of the construction of the target populations, which was supposed to provide a framework for the exploration of politics in public policymaking. Moreover, they wanted to coming up with a policy change that entailed a reconstruction of the target population’s image. It is worth mentioning that the continuous social reconstruction has led to the reduction in the number of those that have already being infected while the rest continue to have preventive measure to remain healthy. As such, the theory held that within a society, there was an identifiable groups of people who had been engulfed by positive and negative images constructed by culture. These images played the role of influencing different policy benefits and burdens that lawmakers were willing to target on a particular group. The relationship that exists between social order and social control in terms of policy reform ensures that reconstruction happened in the society in an effective way (Abel, 1995). Question Four According to Zuchel v. Denver Case it is evident that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal had found out that the city’s police force had failed to fulfil their mandate of properly training their employees in response to their intended work. Basically, the program was directly linked to a police officer’s unconstitutional use of excessive force. Apparently, the court was not persuaded by the defence given by Denver on the circumstance that had led the police officer to shooting Zuchel while he was investigating on a street incident. In fact, in his defence Office r Spinharney argued that he had the right to be granted immunity by the court for shooting Zuchel on the line of duty. However, the court denied him the immunity and he further appealed on the matter As a result of this, the court had held that even if the city had valid policy, it was evident that Office Spinharney had inadequately applied it leading to the death of Leonard Zuchel. Apparently, the Court found out that the police officers has been involved in five instances in a span of six weeks where they had either injured or killed innocent citizens. Additionally, the court wrote a letter to the police department giving suggestion on the how officers would be placed in situation that required them to have a second thought before making a decision on whether to shoot. As such, the Court found out the City needed adequate training of its employees which would include thorough investigations on incidents to avoid the reoccurrence of such liabilities in future (Calavita, 2010). Question Five According to Gonzales v. Castle Rock, it is evident that Ms. Gonzales and her three daughters had gone to court seeking a restraining order for her estranged husband throughout in an estimation of at least 100 yards from their home. However, the husband managed to take away the three daughters while they were playing and went further to killing them. As a result, Ms. Gonzales sued Castle Rock on basis on negligence on the presumed duty of protecting the family. In the ruling, United States Supreme Court found the Castle Rock not guilty of the alleged negligence to protect the family of Ms. Gonzales for various reasons. First, the court found out that the plaintiff did not have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order and as such, Castle Rock through the police officer had not violated the plaintiff’s right by failing to respond to her request. In fact, the Colorado law did not make reinforcement of restraining orders mandatory and as such, the state had not created a personal entitlement to such an order. In addition, it was not clear if the personal entitlement to the restraining order would have constituted a ‘property’ interest for purposes of the claim. Second, the Court argued that even though, both Constitution and the Federal government statute did not grantee Ms. Gonzales and her daughters’ individual entitlement to police protection, such statute had not been created by Colorado Statute. Furthermore, the plaintiff was in a position to hire a private firm for security purposes. The Court concluded that the government was not in a position to offer protection to everything and as such a person had to have a legitimate claim of entitlement (Calavita, 2010). The Knock and Announce Rule Question One The Knock and Announce Rule is cited as one of the rules that were placed in relation to investigation. Basically, the rule under the Fourth Amendment was designed with the intention of providing protection to the interest of individuals in regard to preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence that had been described in a warrant. The rule emanated from a case that had been brought forward to the Supreme Court by Hudson v Michigan. In reference to Hudson and related cases, Justice Scalia argued that if the police had a legitimate warrant that was giving them the mandate to search the home of a suspect, then the suspect had an alternative of placing a suppression that would work as a remedy for an unannounced entry. In addition, Justice Scalia causation argument was that when the police had a valid warrant, it was likely to have the evident seized due to the presence of a knock and announce rule violation. As such, the Supreme Court through Justice Scalia felt that it was necessarily to institute the Knock and Announce Rule since police were alleged to be armed with warrants but failed to knock and announce in most of their execution of searching homes for suspects. As a result, the exclusionary rule did not apply because the police were expected to comply and still be in a position to seize the same evidence that they would have previously seized. Of importance to note is that the creation of the Fourth Amendment as part of the fundamental law in 1791 changed the machinery of law enforcement drastically. In regard to this, the understanding of Framers in relation to combining crime and convicting the guilty is a continuous critical and pressing concern that might result to forsaking commitment related to protecting liberty and privacy of individuals (Johnson, 2012). Question Two It is worth noting that the Hudson Case is a perfect instance of a situation where the police would have exercised the Knock and Announce (KAA) rule but instead opted to work without it. This meant that it was easier to obtain a warrant but they did not. In light of this, the three purposes for the application of the KAA rule as it had been spelled out by Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Hudson’s case comprised of: ‘human life safety, guard of property as well as guard of privacy and destroyable by a sudden entrance’. In reference to the three purposes of the KAA rule, the protection of human life and limb was placed in response a situation that would be presented in case the house holder mistakes the police for prowlers and resist them. On the other hand, protection of property entailed a door or a window that might be damaged during the forcible entry of police officers for search. Similarly, the guard of privacy and dignity that could be destroyed in case the police officers suddenly entered a suspect’s home giving no opportunity for the person to collect him / herself before answering the door. Apparently, the three purposes according to Justice Scalia gave good reasons as to why the KAA rule was crucial in relation to search warrant in any of the suspected persons’ home. Never the less, according to Gutin’s case note the opinion brought forward by Justice Scalia was seen a mockery in relation to the rule. During the countering of Scalia’s opinion, Gutin argued that, Supreme Court was not justified when it ruled that ‘beyond dispute that a home was entitled to special protection as the centre of the private lives of people.’ As such, the Court further made a decision that the rule acted as a mere assurance against being intruded upon in a state of undress. Moreover, Gutin found the ruling of Justice Scalia a mockery because based on the three purposes of Knock and Announce Rule, it is argued that the three purposes would at a point give the suspect time to prepare him or herself based on the issues at hand. For instance, by knocking the door and announcing their intention of searching, the police would give the alleged suspect ample time to prepare for the search by hiding or tampering with evidence thus eluding from prosecution (Johnson, 2012). Question Three Apparently, the Knock and Announce Rule has exclusionary rules that enable the rule to be easily applicable. Basically, the exclusionary rule is denoted as rule that requires the suppression of evidence that was seized by authorities in contravention of the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional provisions. The exclusionary rule consists of two exceptions namely: the independent source doctrine and the inevitable discovery doctrine. It is worth mentioning that the rule was first articulated by the Supreme Court in 1914 although it was enforced in 1961 through a court decision in Mapp v Ohio. In the same way, in the Nix v. William case the court had used the exclusionary rule to allow for the admission of evidence that was derived from a murder victim’s body although the police re learned the body’s location by violating the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. These were the first two instances of using the exclusionary rule. The relationships between Knock and Announce (KAA) Rule and the exclusionary rule is both were continuously used during the investigation, search and Court proceeding relating to various case. For instance, Justice Scalia set three principle arguments that meant to support the Court’s decision to exempt the violations of Knock and Announce Rule from the operations of the exclusionary rule. In essence, he argued that evidence was not supposed to be suppressed based on the issue of being seized through a Fourth Amendment violation, but had to first be shown to be the product of violation. Additionally, the relationship between the KAA rule and the exclusionary rule was that where the police had a legitimate warrant but failed to properly announce themselves, the unlawful manner could not be the cause of obtaining the evidence. Thus, whether initial error had taken place or not, the law enforcement would have affected the warrant and seized the contested evidence. Hence, there was a difference between an unannounced entry which is known to violate the Fourth Amendment and a subsequent search pursuant to warrant which is considered separate and valid. A further argument from Justice Scalia articulated that the application of exclusionary rule to knock and announce violations was capable of generating substantial social costs including the potential that factually guilty criminal would be capable of escaping prosecution, the possibility of having an increase in time –consuming litigation and the possibility that police would be extra cautious for fear of having evidence suppressed. Of importance to note, as a principle of justice, the use of exclusionary ruled in the protection of rights in the Bill of Rights ensure that even the privacy of suspects are protected, as well as, that of their property. In contrast, exclusionary rule can tamper with evidence leading to wrong judgement (Abel, 1995). References: Abel, R. (1995). The Law & Society Reader. New York, NY : New York University Press. Calavita, K. (2010). Invitation To Law & Society: An Introduction To The Study Of Real Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Johnson, C. (2012). The Information Diet : A Case For Conscious Consumption. Beijing; Sebastopol [Calif.] : OReilly Media. Read More