Reference no: EM133941754
Question
Suppose someone said this to you: "Police in America are hampered (impeded) by all of these liberal court doctrines: the exclusionary rule, Miranda warnings and search-and-seizure decisions. These liberal rulings significantly impair in important police work to detect crime and catch criminals."
Compose an argument that refutes this statement using lecture material. What, specifically, would show that this statement is entirely problematic?
Do, in fact, the doctrines in search and seizure, and in Miranda, really limit police very much, or is it the case that they have been made (in the 1900s) to facilitate modern police detection?
The write up should discuss the concept: the "gold standard," the doctrines that allow for "baseless searching," and discuss how doctrine has been specifically adapted to fit modern social problems, like drunk driving, drug wars, airports & luggage (terrorism),