Reference no: EM131581731
Discussion 1
"Policing and Problem Solving" Please respond to the following:
• From the first e-Activity, compare and contrast the two (2) community crime prevention programs you researched from the Crime Solutions.gov website. Justify your response.
• From the second e-Activity, examine the key contributions that Bertillon, Vollmer, and Locard made to the development of criminal investigation. Determine which of the three (3) had the most significant contribution to the development of criminal investigation. Justify your response using one (1) example from independent research.
Please reply to the student as well
CaDarrious Burns
Discussion 1
The two prevention program i chose where Biting Back in Huddersfied and High point Drug Market Intervention. Biting Back is a program designed to reduce repeat victimization in domestic burglary and thefts from cars.
High Point Drug is a problem oriented policing program that aims to eliminate overt drug markets and the problems associated with them through a deterrence based, pulling levers framework. They are both program rated effectively.
There was an increase in satisfaction with police services and no evidence of displaced crime. Bertillon will would be the best contribution to the development of criminal investigation.
To forensics was the systematic use of photography to document crime scenes and evidence. He devised a method of photographing crime scenes with a camera mounted on a high tripod, to document and survey the scene before it was disturbed by investigators.
Discussion 2
"Interpreting the Exclusionary Rule" Please respond to the following:
• Watch the video titled, "The Exclusionary Rule for Dummies - Mapp v Ohio and the 4th Amendment" (11 min 12 s). Next, examine two (2) exceptions to the rule. Provide your opinion as to whether or not you believe that each of these exceptions is constitutional.
• Based on the information found in this chapter related to stop and frisk, examine two (2) actions as they relate to the fourth (4th) amendment and the arrest process. In your opinion, which should have the greatest constitutional protection, stop or frisk? Provide a rationale for your response.
Please also reply to the student
Jonathan Diaz
RE: Week 3 Discussion 2
This video made me laugh. My son (10) watches this kind of stuff all the time. It really is genius
Exceptions to the rule are plain view, US v Leon, and inevitable discovery. In plain view, if criminal activity or something that gives reasonable suspicion or probable cause to an officer, there is no warrant needed.
US v Leon, says that if the officer is in the process of a warrant they are given good faith and evidence is allowed. In inevitable discovery, says evidence that was going to be found eventually is permitted even if what led them to it gets thrown out. Plain view is definitely constitutional.
US v Leon dances a fine line, if the warrant was going to be executed I can't see why not, however the fact that a warrant is needed violates the 4th amendment because it was not done and in hand prior to in a situation where it was required. Inevitable discovery is just a loophole. Whether told where to find evidence or the evidence was found and picked apart just to tie it back to the person in question, it is likely that a case will still be brought against them.
Based on the 4th amendment, an officer must have reasonable suspicion or probable cause in order to conduct a stop and frisk. The text outlines that reason for a stop is to determine if criminal activity has, is or is about to take place and the the only reason for a frisk is officer safety.
I would say the stop should have the greatest constitutional protection. Anything that comes after a legal stop will not endure as much scrutiny and is usually easier to litigate. An illegal stop gets thrown out, even if the fruit of the search is illegal for the person stopped to have.