9. The special need for the searches of prisoners is to maintain safety, security, and discipline
within correctional facilities. The reasonableness of prisoner searches depends on balancing the
need to maintain prison and jail security, safety, and discipline against the invasion of prisoners;
substantially reduced reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court applied the balancing
approach in Hudson v. Palmer.
10. The police needs a reasonable suspicion generally to force the prisoner to undergo a strip
search. This implies that there must be specific facts or circumstances that justify the strip search
or body cavity search. So if the police officer is reasonable enough to believe that the prisoner
might be hiding drugs, weapons or any other object which is illegal beneath his or her clothes,
the officer may be able to order you to undergo strip search. Examples of the factors which may
potentially justify such a search may be the prisoner acting high or having drug paraphernalia or
11. Officer Hudson shook down Palmers locker and destroyed property including legal materials,
letters, and other personal property as a means of harassment. Palmer stated that it was not a
routine shakedown and that it was planned and carried out only as harassment
12. It affects the prisoner because they feel less humane because they do not have any privacy.
However the court argues that shakedowns are routine and that society is not prepared to
recognize the privacy of prisoners
13. The DNA profiles can be released from the data bank to federal, state, and local law
enforcement officers upon a request made in furtherance of an official investigation of any
14. a) Custody. Courts say it’s because they’re still in state custody, and conditional release is a
privilege, not a right. It’s only by the grace of the state they’re conditionally released, and one of
the conditions for release is to be searched at the discretion of the state.
b) Balancing. On the special need side of the balance is the government’s interest in protecting
15. The search in this case was supported by reasonable suspicion. The search of Knights,
supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation, was reasonable
within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
16. The Parolee have committed more serious offenses and are therefore of more risk to the
society. They are still under prison sentence and therefore have a reduced expectation of privacy.
Probation on the other hand is granted to someone who has committed less serious crimes and
has no previous criminal records. Therefore a parolee is seen too be of greater risk and more in
need of supervision.
17. Individualized suspicion is a requirement for mandatory drug testing of certain classes of
railroad and public employees. Employees involved in certain accidents and violating certain
safety rules require drug tests. Certain employees seeking transfer or promotions having direct
involvement with drug interdiction, or to positions requiring the incumbent to carry firearms
allows for drug tests.
18. Striking a balance between students’ reasonable expectations of privacy and the school’s
legitimate need to maintain a healthy learning environment calls for easing the restrictions on
searches of students. Therefore, school officials don’t have to get warrants and they do not need
probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is enough.
19. The government’s interest in deterring drug use by students is important and concluded that
the special need trumped the student athletes’ privacy. Therefore, the court held that the
warrantless searches without individualized suspicion were reasonable.
20. Majority Opinion – The fourth amendment does not require a showing of a probable cause
in all cases. The fourth amendment only protects against intrusion upon legitimate expectations
of privacy. The Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement did not demand the use of the
least intrusive mans to achieve the government’s aims.
Dissenting Opinion – The Court’s decision did not rest on the requirement of individualized
suspicion and did not adequately explain why individualized suspicion was not a requirement in
21. A college’s students’ dormitory room is entitled to the same protection against unreasonable
search and seizure that is afforded to a private home for purposes of the fourth amendment. The
state cannot condition attendance at a state college on a waiver of a constitutional right, nor can it
require students to waive their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as a
condition of occupancy of a college dormitory room.
22. While conducting searches among the high school students, the law requires that the officials
conducting the search must have a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrong doing, but for
college students, this is not a requirement. The searches among college students are limited only
to a specific sect of people while the searches conducted among the high school students are
general with no specific targets.
23. By entering his room, his reasonable expectation of privacy rights, were infringed upon.
Although it is a dorm he was still entitled to the same level of protection against unreasonable
searches and seizure as a private home
24. There are different levels at which the drug tests are justifiable. The first level is Pre –
Employment Drug Testing which does not have to be justified by safety considerations or other
job – specific concerns beyond the desire for a drug test – free workplace. Screening of an
employee for possible use of drug is justifiable when:
The employee's job poses a significant safety risk to others, or to him or herself
The employee is enrolled in a drug rehabilitation program or has just completed such a
The employee was involved in a work-related incident where the use of drugs is
Management has a reasonable suspicion that a given employee has been using illicit
drugs, based on behavior or physical evidence
25. Prenatal patient drug testing-testing in hospital clinics cannot be justified very easily because
of the circumstance which surrounds the testing criterion and these requires a further "Crucial"
outlook. The court held that the fourth amendment does not require police officers to obtain a
warrant or probable cause and in some cases without objective basis at all.
1. Confessions play an ambivalent role in society and law, an ambivalence that's ancient. They
provide access to defendants' innermost beliefs, knowledge, and thinking. They are also
powerful evidence of guilt and remorse.
2. a) Some defendants make inculpatory statements to friends or associates.
b) Defendants regularly admit culpability when they plead guilty to an offense.
c) Defendants frequently make inculpatory statements during the sentencing process in
order to demonstrate contrition.
d) Many defendants confess as a result of police interrogation conducted after their arrest.
3. At the accusatory stage of the criminal process, balancing the needs of law enforcement
against the interests of individual privacy and liberty carries higher stakes for both suspects
and law enforcement.
4. a) Many crimes would go unsolved without information gained through interrogations.
b) Unless caught in the act or interrogated in private, criminals don't confess.
c) Police have to use "less refined methods" (than normal daily police-citizen interaction)
when they interrogate suspects.
5. a) Indiscriminating statements are necessary to solve crimes, but suspects almost never have
reasons to provide them.
b) Ostensibly aimed at uncovering truth, the structure of interrogation requires that
officers act as an arm of prosecution.
c) Confessions are inherently suspected and coercive interrogation has led to false
confession and wrongful conviction.
d) Police can persuade suspects to waive their Miranda rights.
6. Favor for videotaping includes: Creates an objective, reviewable record. Favor against
videotaping include; May not prove authentic enough to convince a jury, the videotaped
interrogations may create a bias against the suspect.
7. The meaning of this statement is that some force is applied to get the one being interrogated
to speak up. In the process, as a result of excessive force, the suspect may be forced to admit
what is not true about him.
8. The Fourteenth Amendment due process clause
The Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel clause
The Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause
9. The basic idea behind the due process approach to confessions is that confessions must be
10. The court throw out confession that the police got after they threatened to bring roger
arthritic wife in for questions.
11. The significance of this case, then, is that it expanded the rights of prisoners to appeal their
12. When someone is arrested or questioned then they have a right to counsel.
13. Compulsion – "No person . . . shall be compelled . . ."
Incrimination – " . . . in any criminal case"
Testimony – "to be a witness against himself"
14. Physical evidence can help establish the elements of a crime. Physical evidence can equally
associate or link victims to the scenes of the crime, offenders to the scenes of crime, victims
to the scenes, instruments to the scenes of crime, offenders to instruments and other links.
Physical evidence however is not generally very effective at identifying a culprit when one is
not already known.
15. Confessions and other incriminating statements violate due process if the totality of
circumstance surrounding the statement shows that suspects didn't confess voluntarily.
16. a) Uneasiness about tactics used against suspects in the intimidating atmosphere of police
b) Dissatisfaction with the vagueness of the totality of circumstance approach.
c) Impatience with the case by case approach to deciding whether confessions were
17. The idea of a “Bright line” rule is that there are some boundaries that someone must not cross
at all. The intent of having this line was to separate the idea of pressure from the idea of
coercion. Confessions obtained as a result of pressure, deceptiveness and other factors are
okay. Confessions obtained as a result of coercion will not be accepted. In Miranda V.
Arizona,, Ernesto Miranda’s confession for kidnapping and raping was illegally obtained. His
confession was illegally obtained without proper adherence to procedure advising right to
remain silent and the right to counsel.
18. a) Take suspects into custody
19. a) Emotional ties between Child and Parents
b) Daily care and guidance
c) Ability to provide for the child
d) Stable Living Situation
e) Health of the parents
20. a) Detaining drivers and passengers during routine traffic stops.
b) Requiring probationers to attend routine meetings with their probation officers.
c) Detaining persons during the execution of search warrants.
21. The commitment to this rule is so strong that the Supreme Court has recognized only
one exception to the Miranda rule the, “public safety” exception, which permits law
enforcement to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation and allows the
government to introduce the statement as direct evidence.
22. The Fifth Amendment "Functional Equivalent of a Question" test provides less protection to
suspects. Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subject to
either express questioning or its functional equivalent.
23. The Sixth Amendment "Deliberately Eliciting a Response" test provides broader protection
for interrogated suspects and more restrictions on interrogating officers.
As soon as the government starts formal proceedings, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel
24. a) Express waiver test, the suspect makes it clear that he knows his rights, knows he’s giving
them up, and knows the consequences.
b) Implied waiver test, the totality of circumstances surrounding each case has to prove
that before suspects talked, they knew their rights and knew they were giving them up.
25. Waivers must be knowing and voluntary. Circumstances relevant to showing this may
include; the ability to understand English, familiarity with the criminal justice system,
intelligence, physical condition, education, mental condition, age.
26. a) Officers engaged in coercive conduct during the interrogation.
b) The coercive conduct caused the suspect to make incriminating statements.
27. a) The length of Questioning
b) The Location where the questioning took place
c) Whether the suspect initiated the contract with the law enforcement.
d) The number of interrogators.
e) Whether the Miranda warnings were given
28. a) Free will
b) Police action
c) Intoxication, Mental Illness, and Physical health
d) Getting legal help.
1. There is a possibility of misidentification of the persons involved in the crime. This may
lead to accusing someone who is not responsible for the crime committed.
2. Acquisition of Memory – This refers to the amount of information a person notes in their
brain at the time of crime.
Retention of memory – This refers to the amount of information that is retained between
the crime and the booking process to the time of the lineup.
Retrieval of Memory – Refers to the amount of information that is able to be recalled at
the time of lineup for identification.
3. a) Length of time to observe the stranger
b) Distractions during the observation
c) Focus of the observation
d) Stress on the witness during the observation
e) Race of the witness and the stranger
4. First, no one’s memory is perfect and this affects accuracy for there are possibilities of
Secondly, the mind has the habit of conflating, i.e. combining other memories to make
the recent memory more believable and this equally affects accuracy.
5. The original memory can be modified, changed or supplemented. Memories are not
always accurate and the notion that repressed memories can be false memories created by
6. Memory is susceptible to a wide variety of bias or errors. People can forget what
happened to them and the people they knew. They can mix up details across time and
place. They can even remember whole complex events that never happened at all. These
errors once made are very difficult to unmake. Eyewitnesses therefore are prone to have
blurred images over time and therefore their description of the events that happened is
likely to change over time.
7. The effect of suggestion is most powerful and threatening at the time when what we
expect influences our behavior. The danger that lies in this is that it may distort the
information that is in the mind of the witnesses as they will formulate the scenes
according to what they expect.
8. In some cases, a police – arranged identification is conducted at very early stages of an
investigation. The eyewitness may not be asked to identify the criminal until sometime
later when the commission formed to investigate the crime and mostly after repeated
probes of the memory of this witness. The result of the whole process may not be reliable
in the long run.
9. a) Photographic array.
b) Live Lineup
c) Show up
10. The due process clauses of the 5 th and 14 th amendments heve been taken, in part, to mean
that the government must deal fairly with the suspects. This implies that the police should
not use identification procedures that unfairly push witnesses to identify a certain
individual. The 6 th amendment can equally be relevant. The state is supposed to avail to
the suspects a lawyer and all the necessary steps for criminal prosecution.
11. Empirical research has found that the traditional method of doing a police lineup is
accurate more often than not. It has additionally found that traditional police lineups do
not typically result in the wrong person being identified as the culprit. Empirical evidence
suggests that the right person is identified most of the time and the wrong person is rarely
12. When you know something, you can unconsciously transmit that knowledge to other
people for example; when lineups are conducted by people who know who the suspects
are, the rate of false identifications of innocent people can skyrocket to more than 300
percent the rate of false identification when lineups are double – blind.
13. The two steps in the tot of circumstances due process test of admissibility is
a) The identification procedure was unnecessary suggestive.
b) The unnecessary suggestive procedure created a very substantial likelihood of
misidentification. The two prong test states unnecessarily and impermissibly suggestive
identifications are admissible unless defendants can prove that they create a "very
substantial likelihood of misidentification. Thus, even though an out-of-court
identification procedure is unnecessarily suggestive, evidence of the out-of-court
identification may still be admissible if the court is satisfied that under the totality of
circumstances the identification is reliable there is not a "very substantial likelihood of
14. Witnesses' opportunity to view defendants at the time of the crime, Witnesses' degree of
attention at the time of the crime. Witnesses' accuracy of description of defendants prior
to the identification. Witnesses' level of certainty when identifying defendants at the time
of the identification procedure. The length of time between the crime and the
15. There are different grounds that eye witness testimony is questioned scientifically. One is
that visibility conditions may play a factor in identification, anywhere from low light,
distance and weather. There have been research studies that have shown even under
normal conditions; humans have issues with facial recognition. Finally, the identification
procedure that might be used in the procedure could be biased. The human memory has
issues with reliability. Thus photo identification may fall short of the expectations.
16. a) The person administering a lineup or photo array should not know the identity of the
suspect — so-called double-blind administration.
b) The witness should be told that the suspect might or might not be in the lineup.
c) The suspect should not stand out in appearance from any of the other participants.
d) The witness's confidence in any identification should be taken down at the time and
before any feedback.
17. a) Utilize non – suspect fillers chosen to minimize any suggestions that might point
towards the suspect.
b) Utilize a double blind procedure, in which the administrator (called a blind
administrator) doesn’t know who the suspect is, and therefore, isn’t in a position to
influence the witness’s selection unintentionally.
18. That's more than enough to provide a profile that accurately identifies a person. DNA is
often left behind at a crime scene. It is present in all kinds of evidence, including blood,
hair, skin, saliva, and semen. Scientists can analyze the DNA in evidence samples to see
if it matches a suspect's DNA.
19. The jurors are charged with the responsibility of deciding whether, on the facts of the
case, a person is guilty or not guilty of the offence for which he or she has been charged.
The jury must reach its verdict by considering only the evidence introduced in court and
the directions of the judge.
Anderson, Gregory S., Robin Litzenberger, and Darryl Plecas. "Physical evidence of police
officer stress." Policing: an international journal of police strategies & management 25.2
Andrews, Arthur W. "The Right To Counsel in Criminal Tax Investigations Under Escobedo and
Miranda: The Critical Stage." Iowa L. Rev. 53 (1967): 1074.
Davis, Deborah, Richard A. Leo, and William C. Follette. "Selling confession: Setting the stage
with the “sympathetic detective with a time-limited offer”." Journal of contemporary criminal
justice 26.4 (2010): 441-457.
Fazel, Seena, et al. "Suicide in prisoners: a systematic review of risk factors." The Journal of
clinical psychiatry (2008).
Lindsay, D. Stephen. "Misleading suggestions can impair eyewitnesses' ability to remember
event details." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition16.6
Palmer, John W. Constitutional rights of prisoners. Routledge, 2014.
Traynor, Roger J. "The Devils of Due Process in Criminal Detection, Detention, and Trial." The
University of Chicago Law Review 33.4 (1966): 657-680.
Wells, Gary L., and Amy L. Bradfield. "Distortions in eyewitnesses' recollections: Can the
postidentification-feedback effect be moderated?." Psychological Science 10.2 (1999): 138-144.
World Medical Association. "Statement on body searches of prisoners. Budapest 1993, revised
Divonee-les-Bains 2005." (2011).