Criminal Procedure in Regards to Search and Seizure Essay

Criminal Procedure in Regards to Search and Seizure - Essay ExampleThrough the study of the differences between 2 cases that set case in point for the decision of State v. Randolph (2002) in Tennessee, including atomic number 20 v. Hodari D. (1991) and United States v. Mendenhall (1980), these circumstances will be addressed. Also discussed at heart this paper will be how these decisions impact both law enforcement officers in trying to carry come forth the duties of their jobs, and how those same decisions can affect those with mental health conditions when faced with search and capture circumstances. Response motif Number One Criminal Procedure in Regards to Search and Seizure Differences in the Decisions Between atomic number 20 v. Hodari D (1991) and United States v. Menedenhall (1980) In the case of State v. Randolph (2002), as reviewed in the Memphis Law Review by Brent A. Heilig, the important issue to be dealt with is, in broad terms, the search and seizure of citizen s. Though this practice, tally to Mr. Heilig, is supported by Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee State Constitution, as well as the one-quarter Amendment of the United States Constitution, it is frequently questioned and cited throughout the case. For purposes of precedent, as with most legal cases, two previously decided cases were apt(p) for comparison, United States v. Mendenhall (1980) and California v. Hodari D. (1991). ... Mendenhall (1980), the Supreme Court concluded that if a person believed they were free to leave at any time, they were non seized. This is fairly straightforward. If a person believes that they argon not free to leave an expanse before, during, or after being detained by law enforcement, they have been seized. If they believe that they are free to leave, they are not. However, in the case of California v. Hodari D. (1991), the Supreme Court ruled that a person was not considered seized unless approximately form of physical restraint was directed at an individual by an officer, or the individual has yielded to about form of authority shown, thus introducing a immanent element. Even the wording of the California v. Hodari D. (1991) decision is subjective while a form of physical restraint can be interpreted fairly easily, as law enforcement officers have such means at their disposal, the term show of authority cannot. It is not defined, exactly, what a show of authority is, whether it is calling for a suspect to halt, activating flashing lights on a patrol car, or simply showing some form of identification as a law enforcement officer. Regardless, the main point is that if they do not submit, they are not considered seized. The second main difference highlighted between the two decisions is that instead of moving in a broader direction as far as seizure parameters were concerned, California v. Hodari D. (1991) moves in the other direction completely. As per United States v. Mendenhall (1980), all that is required to define a s eizure is the belief by a person that they are not free to go. This defines a broach cooking stove of seizure, and sets a precedent for future cases that can easily be applied. By its very nature, the phrase not free to leave can