Reference no: EM132171386

Respond to the following: Answer the discussion(X2). Include at least 2 references.

A good response to a written question should combine your personal experiences with theory to support your work. Be thoughtful and insightful and it must demonstrate critical thinking and analysis.

D1: Narrowing the Application of the Exclusionary Rule

Although the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution does not specifically mention the exclusionary rule or remedies regarding evidence that was seized in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, or Fourteenth Amendments, the courts have created appropriate rules and exceptions to fit the circumstances of each case.

Therefore, the exclusionary rule is a device created by the U.S. Supreme Court to enforce existing constitutional rights, not a right in its own. This matter will be very apparent as you study the historical case law from Weeks v. U.S. (1914) and Mapp v. Ohio (1961), to Heien v. North Carolina ( 2014).

Respond to the following:

For this discussion, read the articles in Annotation 6 - Fourth Amendment,"Enforcing the Fourth Amendment: The Exclusionary Rule ," and Heien v. North Carolina, 603 S. Ct. 13 (see attachment), and then respond to the following:

1. Based upon your interpretation of the articles, do you think court decisions regarding the application of the exclusionary rule are narrowing its application? Explain your answer in full to support your position.

D2: Non duty to Protect

Although we often see the motto "To Serve and Protect" on many police cruisers, does this actually mean the police must always protect us?

Many times, horrific crimes occur yet the police are not held liable for their non-intervention in stopping or preventing the crime.

Although the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment contains equal protection clauses, such as ensuring that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, does this actually mean that police must affirmatively protect you from a third party's intent to injure or kill you?

For this discussion, study the following:

• Pinder v. Johnson ( 1995) case

• Article, "NRA president James Porter on the job of police: No duty to protect"

Respond to the following:

2. Within the context of the arguments presented in the Pinder v. Johnson ( 1995) case, and the National Rifle Association President James Porter's article, do you think the U.S. Constitution needs to be amended to provide for an affirmative-duty-to-protect citizens? Explain your position and discuss the consequences that may arise from a change.