Law and Justice Blog: 3

Link

This is the case of the State of Minnesota v. Carter. In this case, police were given a tip that certain people in a specified apartment were dealing illegal drugs. They peered through the gap in some blinds of said apartment, where they saw people putting a white substance into plastic bags. After they attained a search warrant, the two people who left the apartment were arrested and searched, and found to have crack cocaine in the car.

It could be argued that the arrest was unconstitutional, seeing as they thought they had privacy, and had gone out of their way by closing the blinds to acheive this privacy from any prying eyes. They attempted to take this to their advantage, but it's not a foolproof argument. Because the police obtained search warrants under reasonable suspicion, there really isn't much that can be argued for the criminals.

There is also that the apartment was not theirs. Therefore such a temporary housing could not grant them the same privacy as their own home. It wasn't their home, therefore, it was basically the same as having the cocaine at work. It was not quite a public place, but they weren't allowed ultimate privacy, either. So, it really wasn't a violation of their rights. It would have been a violation if they were in their own home, or if they hadn't attained a search warrant.

Law and Justice Blog: 2

 Link to Article

This article discusses the "Broken Windows" policy. It stresses on a quality of life in New York City, something that the citizens seem to have been lacking. The strategy is mildly effective, seeing as it discourages crime. It discourages crime in this way : If you commit a minor crime, you still get punished for it. This is like punishing a child for a menial thing, they will fear doing anything higher than that, and will be deterred from doing it. You could say that it infringes on rights, but at the same time, it really doesn't. If the person commits a crime, then they should be held accountable. It is not as if they are being arrested for things that aren't actually illegal.

There really isn't a way to 'get around it' but some criminals may not be deterred, or not care about the consequences no matter what one does. This way is just hoping to prevent it before it happens. The main goal is to scare the criminals off before they decide to strike, more than anything. In this case, it's to make a higher quality of life for the people in the surrounding area.

The police still have to follow Miranda rights (reading them their rights) and cannot do a search without reasonable suspicion, and, under New York's newer law, search someone's car without consent. They still are required to act as proper law enforcement, and cannot step over that boundary.

Blog Assignment One

Link To Article

In this article, the debated death of a young girl is being examined. Her father has been accused of throwing her off of Inspiration Point in California. He was seen hiking with the young girl in the area, and, the man, an avid and active woodsman, claimed he couldn't keep up with the girl. However, even if this were true, her body shows tell-tale signs of being thrown off the cliff, including bruises on her body. Many witnesses claimed that he was walking ahead of the girl, and not behind her as he had insisted. She was only four years old, she couldn't go that far for two miles. The motive seemed to be him not wanting to pay child support, and get back at his girlfriend for the custody battle.This would be a criminal charge, if he is found guilty. This is a case of murder, which is against the law to protect any given human being's right to life. I agree with, and I'm sure anyone, who wants to live, agrees with this law. No one has the right to take another human's life, especially without consequence.