Miranda V. AZ and AZ V. Fuliminante

I am going to provide a synopsis of the case of Miranda V. Arizona, and also the case of Arizona V. Fulminante. I will provide a comparative synopsis of these two cases, discuss final court rulings and the legal requirements for admissibility of statements and the applicability of those legal requirements to the above mentioned cases.
In the case of Miranda V. Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963. Miranda was arrested after a crime victim identified him in a police lineup. Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping and interrogated for two hours while in police custody. Police officers questioning him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. Miranda confessed in writing to the crimes with which he was charged. His written statement also included an acknowledgement that he was aware of his right against self-incrimination. During his trial, the prosecution used his confession to obtain a conviction, and he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison on each count. (Landmarkcases, 2009)
The case of Miranda V. Arizona comes down to the fact that the individual, Ernesto Miranda should have been informed of his rights at the time of his confession and because he was not that his confession should have been excluded from the trial. The case moved through the court system when Miranda was convicted in 1965 for kidnapping and rape on the basis of a written confession that was admitted into evidence despite defense objections that Miranda had not been informed of his right to an attorney and his right to remain silent during the police interrogation. Then in 1965 as well the Supreme Court of Arizona upheld the conviction stating that Miranda’s rights were not violated at trial by allowing the confession. (Landmarkcases, 2009)

Finally in 1966 the case of Miranda landed at the Supreme Court of the United States, It was then that the Supreme court of the United States reversed the Arizona Supreme Court and held that statements obtained from defendants during interrogations in police-dominated atmosphere without full warning of right to remain silent and right to counsel violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and were inadmissible.
The legal requirement for admissibility of the statements in this case of Miranda V. Arizona was not met, while any suspect is in custody and undergoing a custodial interrogation they must be informed of their rights. The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to not incriminate one’s self and the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel even if the individual cannot afford a lawyer. The statement made by Miranda cannot be considered admissible because Miranda was not informed of these rights prior to his confession, had Miranda been informed he may have requested a lawyer or remained silent.
In the case of Arizona V. Fulminante, the defendant Fulminante was the stepfather to 11 year old Jeanne who was found murdered in Mesa Arizona in the dessert shot twice in September of 1982. Fulminante had reported the young girl missing to the Mesa police department two days before her body was found. Fulminante's statements to police concerning Jeneane's disappearance and his relationship with her contained a number of inconsistencies, and he became a suspect in her killing. When no charges were filed against him, Fulminante left Arizona for New Jersey. Fulminante was later convicted in New Jersey on federal charges of possession of a firearm by a felon.
Fulminante was imprisoned he became friends with another inmate, Anthony Sarivola. Sarivola, a former police officer, had been involved in loan sharking for organized crime, but then became a paid informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. While at Ray Brook, he masqueraded as an organized crime figure. After becoming friends with Fulminante, Sarivola heard a rumor that Fulminante was suspected of killing a child in Arizona. Sarivola then raised the subject with Fulminante in several conversations, but Fulminante repeatedly denied any involvement in Jeneane's death. During one conversation, he told Sarivola that Jeneane had been killed by bikers looking for drugs; on another occasion, he said he did not know what had happened. Sarivola passed this information on to an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who instructed Sarivola to find out more.
Sarivola said that he knew Fulminante was "starting to get some tough treatment and whatnot" from other inmates because of the rumor. Sarivola offered to protect Fulminante from his fellow inmates, but told him, "`You have to tell me about it,' you know. I mean, in other words, `For me to give you any help.'". Fulminante then admitted to Sarivola that he had driven Jeneane to the desert on his motorcycle, where he choked her, sexually assaulted her, and made her beg for her life, before shooting her twice in the head. (Findlaw, 2010)
Fulminante was tried and convicted of his stepdaughter’s murder when his attorney tried to suppress the confession and the court ruled that it was admissible. He was sentenced to death. Fulminante appealed, arguing, that his confession to Sarivola was the product of coercion and that its admission at trial violated his rights to due process, under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. After considering the evidence at trial as well as the stipulated facts before the trial court on the motion to suppress, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the confession was coerced, but initially determined that the admission of the confession at trial was harmless error, because of the overwhelming nature of the evidence against Fulminante. The Arizona Supreme Court ordered that he be retried without the confession being admissible. The Arizona Supreme Court found a credible threat of physical violence unless Fulminante confessed. In the Arizona Supreme Court's initial opinion, in which it determined that harmless error analysis could be applied to the confession, the court found that the admissible second confession to Donna Sarivola rendered the first confession to Anthony Sarivola cumulative. In a divided opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that the state Supreme Court’s finding that Fulminante might have been subjected to violence was sufficient to establish a finding of coercion, and therefore affirmed the reversal. In addition, the Court held that a harmless error analysis should nonetheless be applied to any allegedly coerced confession. In either case, the Court held that a new trial was warranted. (Findlaw, 2010)








References

Landmark cases. (2009). Miranda v arizona . Retrieved from http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/background3.html
Findlaw, . (2010). Arizona v. fulminante, 499 u.s. 279 (1991) . Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=499&invol=279

People always come into your life for a reason, a season, or a lifetime. When you figure out which it is, you know exactly what to do.

People always come into your life for a reason, a season, or a lifetime.

When you figure out which it is, you know exactly what to do.

..

When someone is in your life for a REASON,

it is usually to meet a need you have expressed outwardly or inwardly.

They have come to assist you through a difficulty,

or to provide you with guidance and support,

to aid you physically, emotionally, or even spiritually.

They may seem like a godsend to you, and they are.

They are there for the reason you need them to be.

...

Then, without any wrong doing on your part or at an inconvenient time,

this person will say or do something to bring the relationship to an end.

...

Sometimes they die. Sometimes they just walk away.

Sometimes they act up or out and force you to take a stand.

What we must realize is that our need has been met, our desire fulfilled; their work is done.

The prayer you sent up has been answered and it is now time to move on.

...

When people come into your life for a SEASON,

it is because your turn has come to share, grow, or learn.

They may bring you an experience of peace or make you laugh.

They may teach you something you have never done.

They usually give you an unbelievable amount of joy.

Believe it! It is real! But, only for a season.

And like Spring turns to Summer and Summer to Fall,

the season eventually ends.

...

LIFETIME relationships teach you lifetime lessons;

those things you must build upon in order to have a solid emotional foundation.

Your job is to accept the lesson, love the person/people (anyway);

and put what you have learned to use in all other relationships and areas in your life.

It is said that love is blind but friendship is clairvoyant.

Thank you for being part of my life.

Search and Seizure

The Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not scribe those words with the automobile in mind. The issues involving the seizure and search of automobiles and their occupants were, thus, addressed by the Supreme Court in their constitutional interpretations recorded in case law. With the advent of the automobile in 1914 through the turn of the new millennium, the easy mobility of the automobile and its operation on public roads has influenced the Supreme Court in their interpretation of the Constitution. The issue of privacy in an automobile is, therefore, considered to be dramatically diminished. These factors have played an important role in the eyes of the court.
Police officers do not need a warrant to search a vehicle as long as the officer has probable cause to believe that the vehicle may contain contraband or evidence of a crime. Probable cause is a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. This can be almost anything depending on that individual officer’s beliefs, bias, preferences or tendency to racially profile individuals. It is my opinion that officers do indeed “find” probable cause if they decide that they need to investigate further for whatever reason. It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. The issue here lies in what some officers may or may not label as probable cause.
Search and seizure is not a bad thing as long as it is handled properly by the arresting officer. When officers fail to go by the book and exercise good judgment not only are they leaving their department open for liability they are also violating the rights of individuals. Another repercussion of bad policing is in the form of negative publicity. When officers make bad choices and decide to search a vehicle and they have no legitimate reason it creates negative publicity for the department and affects public opinions of police in general.

Reasonable suspicion and so forth

Define Reasonable Suspicion, Probable Cause, and Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Also explain what authority each level of information gives government.
Reasonable Suspicion:
To conduct a Terry search, or a stop and frisk, police need reasonable suspicion that the person is suspected of imminent illegal behavior or past criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement; it is commonly described as something more than a hunch, but less than probable cause.
Probable Cause:
In the United States criminal court system, probable cause refers to facts or evidence that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime or wrong doing has been, is being, or will be committed.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt:
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. This is the standard that must be met by the prosecution.

HOPE

God doesn't give you the people you want, He gives you the people you NEED- To help you, to hurt you, to leave you,to love you and make you into the person you were meant to be.

Dear God: The lady (ladies) reading this is beautiful, classy, and strong, and I love her. Help her live her life to the fullest. Please promote her and cause her to excel above all her expectations. Help her shine in the darkest places where it is impossible to love. Protect her at all times, lift her up when she needs you the most, and let her know when she walks with you, She will always be safe.

Blessings,
Jamie

Bring the rain

I can count a million times
People asking me how I
Can praise You with all that
I've gone through
The question just amazes me
Can circumstances possibly
Change who I forever am in You

Maybe since my life was changed
Long before these rainy days
It's never really ever crossed my mind
To turn my back on you, oh Lord
My only shelter from the storm
But instead I draw closer through these times
So I pray

Bring me joy, bring me peace
Bring the chance to be free
Bring me anything that brings
You glory And I know there'll
be days When this life brings me pain
But if that's what it takes to
praise You Jesus, bring the rain

I am yours regardless of the clouds that may
loom above because you are much greater than
my pain you who made a way for me suffering
your destiny so tell me whats a little rain

[1st Chorus]

Holy, holy, holy
Holy, holy, holy
is the lord God almighty
is the lord God almighty
I'm forever singing

[2nd Chorus 2x]

everybody singing
Holy holy holy
you are holy
you are holy

4 th amendment and the exclusionary rule

What would happen if the Fourth Amendment did not exist? The fourth amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This means security in my opinion, of the person in their home mainly. If the fourth amendment did not exist, what would happen? In my opinion the fourth amendment might as well not exist thanks to the USA PATRIOT Act which by the way is you disagree with it you are not an extreme nutjob, anyways, the Act ensures that the government now does have the ability if they so choose to bypass the fourth amendment and do as they please. The Patriot Act increases the government’s surveillance powers in four areas:
1. Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by third parties. (Section 215)
2. Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
3. Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
4. "Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).
The Act also creates a new crime of "domestic terrorism." The Patriot Act transforms protesters into terrorists if they engage in conduct that "involves acts dangerous to human life" to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." How long will it be before an ambitious or politically motivated prosecutor uses the statute to charge members of controversial activist groups like Operation Rescue or Greenpeace with terrorism? Under the Patriot Act, providing lodging or assistance to such "terrorists" exposes a person to surveillance or prosecution. Furthermore, the law gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to detain or deport any non-citizen who belongs to or donates money to one of these broadly defined "domestic terrorist" groups




The exclusionary rule, stemming directly from the Fifth Amendment, states that no object may be used in court as evidence if obtained illegally or without a proper search warrant. This principle gained its constitutional roots back in 1921 in the case of Gouled vs. United States. This Supreme Court held that although the government could seize contraband, it could not seize property simply to use as evidence. There are certain cases where evidence from warrantless searches is admissible, such as when something is in plain view, at an airport, during an arrest, or when there is no time to obtain a warrant. The exclusionary rule prevents the police, in their zealousness to solve crimes, from violating the civil liberties of American citizens. Warrants can only be issued by judges if there is "probably cause" to believe that evidence of wrongdoing will be found. Warrants must contain the date, location, and time of a search, what is expected to be found, and the grounds for believing that such an object will be found in the place indicated. Many feel that these institutional safeguards are what distinguish America from less civilized nations. They maintain that our civil liberties must be protected above all else. The problem in some peoples' minds is that a person should not have contraband in his/her possession to begin with. If a police officer or investigator uncovers contraband in an unconstitutional manner, they feel that there is no reason to pretend that the material does not exist. They maintain that criminals all too often escape justice by loopholes such as this. Some Americans are willing to sacrifice some of their Constitutional rights for a greater feeling of safety and security.