Ethical Issues In Criminology

The ethical battles of criminology are being played in the streets with law enforcement and state/local laws attempting to find the methods that do not illegally encroach on civil liberties, but also give law enforcement the tools it needs to maximally solve and reduce crime. New laws are implemented to give the law enforcement those tools, but when people’s rights are infringed the courts have to determine the intricacies of the practices. Court rulings and especially the Supreme Court cases should be studied because it not only reviews the law and the legality for which the consequences for both civilians and law enforcement themselves. The opinions give the reasons and not only a short description of the case with the facts, but also

the technicalities of the rulings and what to keep in mind for a reversal of that ruling with the dissenting opinion. This can give law enforcement the true spirit of the law.
Despite the lackluster total amount of cases the Robert’s court, these law enforcement cases have been numerous.

In United States v. Jones (2011) the Supreme Court ruled that a GPS tracking device on a vehicle is a search and must have a valid warrant for its use on the vehicle of the suspect. There was originally a warrant issued, but it had expired one day late, but instead of requesting a new warrant, the process of the GPS installation took place without it valued. This case demonstrates the strong perspective upon an automobile for personal locked property.

In Fermamdez v. California (2013) the Supreme Court ruled that a person’s home can be searched without a warrant if the one of the occupiers of the house has given consent if the dissenting party to the search is legally detained by the police. This can streamline investigations with just communication with the occupants without the trouble of contacting a judge to get the warrant.

In the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York ruled in David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson, Deon Dennis, and David Ourlicht, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly stated v. The City Of New York (2013), the rights of law enforcement to cease and desist the practices of “Stop-and-Frisk”. This practice was credited by Mayor Bloomberg for having a strong reduction in the amount of crime in New York City but at a cost of violating the 4th amendment rights of citizens but also especially against

minorities.
In Arizona v. United States (2012) the immigration bill was brought under examination. The slaw was partially struck down for special holdings for aliens, but the controversial “show me your papers” was upheld. The idea of this was that people who have Hispanic characteristics have to prove their citizenship for just being a minority in the state of Arizona.
The Supreme Court case of Riley v. California, (2013) the Court ruled that a cell phone has become more advanced with all of its data features, and now requires a warrant for examination. When a phone was simply a device for phone calls and not for massive amounts of information, any examination would have been carte blanche but also with little more evidence that could be found beyond fingerprints.
These cases can give a more definite rights and liberties to both the citizens and the law enforcement to know what is legal and illegal. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for the breaking of the law, so everyone should be aware of what the law actually is. In a changing world with increased technology the use of tracking devices can be used by law enforcement but must be carefully inbounds of the warrant.