Reference no: EM133506910

Case Study: Mr. Goldman is a 40-year-old male who is suspected by the police of being involved in several burglaries where expensive jewelry was taken. Detectives Goodguy and Green, having no real evidence to prove a case against Mr. Goldman, decided to go have a talk with Mr. Goldman at his house. Mr. Goldman voluntarily lets the two Detectives into his house and invites them into his living room to talk. Detective Goodguy begins to ask Mr. Goldman questions concerning the jewelry burglaries. As Detective Goodguy is questioning Mr. Goldman, Detective Green asks Mr. Goldman if he can use his bathroom. Mr. Goldman gives Detective Green permission to use his bathroom and tells him exactly where it is at.

Detective Green, on his way to use the bathroom, decides to go into Mr. Goldman's bedroom. Once in the bedroom, Detective Green looks around and sees an unusual-looking jewelry case. Detective Green opens the jewelry case and sees several expensive pieces of jewelry which he recognizes as being stolen in the burglaries. Detective Green confiscates the stolen jewelry and returns to the living room where he then confronts Mr. Goldman about the stolen jewelry. Detective Green tells Mr. Goldman, "We have you now. You are not going anywhere. You might as well tell us everything". Mr. Goldman then gives both Detectives a full confession.

Directions: write an approximately 750-word essay (APA formatted) that addresses the following:

• Describe the action(s) by the detectives that were in violation of Mr. Goldman's constitutional rights.
• Evaluate the importance of the Constitutional protections afforded to Mr. Goldman based on the circumstances.
• Explain which Constitutional Amendments these protections fall under.
• Discuss what steps you would have taken in this scenario if you were one of the detectives.