There are several cases which have been brought before the Supreme Court that deal with relationships between policing and the bill of rights. These rulings have set precedents on the way police officers are expected to apply the law in their duties. In the United States v. Jones case, the placement of a GPS device under a suspect’s car was interpreted as a violation of the Fourth amendment by the Supreme Court. Judges argued that the surveillance done by police officers was unlawful because they trespassed on Jones’ personal property which violated his privacy (Chechak). They relied on the United States v. Katz case to rule that the officers should have observed reasonable limits of privacy before carrying out the surveillance.
The Howes v. Fields case focused on how the Miranda principle is applied by law enforcement officers when they are questioning people. Fields, the defendant had been questioned by sheriff deputies who did not read him his Miranda rights before his incarceration. Supreme Court judges ruled that confinement of a person by police officers does not mean he has officially been charged with a crime. In the Smith v. Cain case, the ability of a witness to recollect crucial facts accurately in a homicide trial was put to the test (Chechak). Juan Smith had been charged as the main defendant even though the prosecution’s main witness, Larry Boatner had written a testimony that stated he did not remember how the assailants looked like. Boatner’s verbal testimony during trial hearings was contradictory because he claimed that Smith was one of the people who attacked him that night. Judges ruled that the prosecution had violated the Brady principle because they failed to produce Boatner’s written statement in court.
In the Messerschmidt v. Millender civil case, the defendant argued that a police search on her property violated her Fourth Amendment rights to privacy. Officers involved alleged that the doctrine of qualified immunity shielded them from any legal liabilities related to the search on Millender’s house (Chechak). The Supreme Court reversed an earlier ruling and argued that the principle of qualified immunity shielded the police from the civil suit. Judges ruled that the officers were enforcing a legal warrant as required by the law. In the United States v. Alvarez case, the defendant was charged with making false statements. In a speech, he had claimed he was a genuine Congressional Medal of Honor recipient. The court ruled that even though his comments were false, they were not defamatory because they did not harm anyone.
Works Cited
Chechak, Kevin. “Supreme Court Cases.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Nov. 2012. Web.