critical analysis of the content, law homework help

Read each paragraph and give me your opinion do you agree
do you disagree with those 2 paragraphs one for each part and if you agree or disagree
why or why not CJ

1.Police officers don’t
need a warrant to make a search “incident to arrest.” After an
arrest, officers have the right to protect themselves by searching for weapons
and to protect the legal case against the suspect by searching for evidence
that the suspect might try to destroy. Assuming that the officer has probable
cause to make the arrest in the first place, a search of the person and the
person’s surroundings following the arrest is generally valid, and any evidence
uncovered is typically admissible at trial” (Bergman, n.d.). Somethings that
would be considered improper would be unnecessary use of force, searching the
suspects home if they were arrested somewhere else or placing evidence to help
make their case.

2.Explore justification
for each of the things an officer is allowed to do after an arrest without the
need for a warrant. Justifications for the things an officer is allowed to do
after an arrest without the need for a warrant may consist of ; if the property
is abandoned, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the suspect may
have hidden evidence. The officer may search the immediate control area to
secure safety, seize evidence in order to prevent concealment or
destruction of evidence or for a predetermined target (such as narcotics). Establish how
certain actions go beyond what you would consider to be acceptable were you the
arrestee. Certain actions such as, racial profiling and strip searching without
probable cause, I feel goes beyond acceptance. Ex., as stated on page 195 of Criminal Procedure, 9e., officers
installed a peep hole in the ceiling of a public restroom to observe what
occurred in the stalls, without a warrant. They observed two people engaging in
illegal sexual acts. In this case the issue of reasonable expectation of privacy
is what the two arrested had. Also. i feel as though the main issue is society
today in which officers go beyond what i would consider to be acceptable would
be POLICE BRUTALITY. Lay out measures to ensure compliance with legal
parameters when working in the criminal justice field. The first measure should
be to make sure before you pull over or arrest someone, you have all the right
reasons including probable cause. Second measure should be to make sue you are
in compliance with all government laws. Be sure that you are not violating
anyones constitutional rights and are abiding by all the rules unless you have
legit “Good Faith” and reason to do so otherwise and that
whatever you do will hold up in court. Make sure that you are being honest and
that your intentions are for the good, after all, you are here to protect and
serve, not harm or harass. Establish how courts have interpreted the parameters
involved in a search after an arrest incorporating two cases as pints
reference. According to Herring v. United States : Extension of the Good
Faith exception to the exclusionary rule in fourth amendment cases, the supreme
court, applied the “good faith” exception to bar application to the
exclusionary rule, In Mincey v. Arizona (1978), the court said that a
warrant must be obtained in crime scene investigations, regardless of the
seriousness of the offense. The only exception to this rule is if obtaining
warrant would mean that the evidence would be lost, destroyed, or removed
during the time required to obtain a warrant. Also. according to the same