Introduction
The rule of law from one lawsuit can be applied to other situations, including older cases. For instance, the Penny Parker scenario follows the murder of a teenage girl, with the crime being unsolved for twenty-five years (CBS, 2015; Walton, 2017). In 1977, Penny Jean Parker was fifteen years old and, on May 7, went out to collect payment for her paper route but never came back home (CBS, 2015; Walton, 2017). Two days later, her body was found, and it was determined that the young girl was sexually assaulted, strangled, and stabbed to death (CBS, 2015; Walton, 2017). The prime suspect was a known sex offender named Don Jennings, yet he had passed a lie detector test, and the police had no witnesses or substantial evidence (CBS, 2015). Nonetheless, DNA analysis has advanced since 1977 and proved Jennings’s involvement in the murder based on semen found in the victim’s underwear (CBS, 2015). However, when the investigators reached Jennings’s house to make the arrest, the offender committed suicide (CBS, 2015). The Penny Parker scenario can be characterized by several legal issues that can be examined using prior lawsuits.
Legal Issues
Because Penny Parker’s killer has taken his life, the case has never gone to a proper trial with the defendant’s presence, but the situation could have been associated with certain legal matters. In particular, Jennings was questioned soon after the victim’s body had been discovered, yet the police had the authority to arrest him only twenty-five years later, which was likely to cause problems (CBS, 2015). Therefore, the first legal issue, in this case, would be whether Jennings would have been informed about his rights. The second two concerns would be if the police officers were permitted to search his house after the arrest and whether additional evidence found during the search would be admissible. Finally, despite the high percentage of DNA matching, the investigators would need to interrogate the suspect, which would pose a question of how to act if Jennings requested to have a lawyer (CBS, 2015). Accordingly, the legal issues in the reviewed case may center around Jennings’s arrest.
Relevant Cases
Several prior lawsuits govern each of the identified above problems. For example, Miranda v. Arizona, which was decided in 1966, can oversee the first matter of informing Jennings about his rights. Chimel v. California of the year 1969 can determine the second concern of whether police officers are allowed to search Jennings’s house. Mapp v. Ohio was ruled in 1961 and can clarify the third issue of using evidence in court. Edwards v. Arizona, which ended in 1981, can be employed in the fourth matter to define Jennings’s privilege to have a lawyer. The listed lawsuits can be applied to the examined incident due to having concerned similar legal issues before.
Rule of Law
Each of the mentioned court cases provides a distinct rule of law. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) mandates that law enforcement officials must inform a person about their rights to remain silent and have an attorney. Otherwise, without such a declaration, the obtained details cannot be used at a trial unless there is proof that the defendant intentionally and intelligently waived their liberties (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). Chimel v. California (1969) proposes that police officers cannot rummage through an individual’s home without a search warrant when arresting the said person on their property. In this situation, the court ruled that having only an arrest warrant does not give the authorities the power to acquire evidence from a suspect’s house (Chimel v. California, 1969). Mapp v. Ohio (1961) states that prosecutors cannot use evidence obtained through violation of the Fourth Amendment in state court. Edwards v. Arizona (1981) requires law enforcement officials to cease interrogation once a defendant invokes their right to counsel and continue the process after the attorney arrives. The reviewed rules of law can oversee future relevant lawsuits with similar subjects.
Furthermore, the discussed court rulings could be applied to the legal issues concerning the arrest of Penny Parker’s killer if he had not committed suicide to evade punishment. When the police went to capture him after the DNA testing, they carried an arrest warrant, but it is not clear if they brought a search warrant (CBS, 2015; Walton, 2017). Therefore, Miranda v. Arizona (1966) mandates that the authorities must have read Jennings his rights when arresting him, but Chimel v. California (1969) states they could not rummage through his house to find additional proof. Accordingly, the law permits the officers’ actions to arrest the subject but not to explore his property without suitable permission. Consequently, Mapp v. Ohio (1961) proposes that the investigators would not be able to use evidence located in Jennings’s home. Finally, if the suspect would have requested a lawyer, the police could not interrogate him without an attorney (Edwards v. Arizona, 1981). Accordingly, defense motions could have been filed if law enforcement officers violated either of the discussed rules, causing evidence to be excluded due to disregarding Jennings’s legal rights.
Conclusion
To summarize, the Penny Parker scenario involves the murder of a teenage girl, where the suspected killer was identified many years later, and his potential arrest could have raised many legal issues. If Don Jennings had not taken his own life, he would have been brought into custody and trialed. However, although the investigators had substantial DNA evidence, the appropriate sentencing may have been put at risk if police officers made mistakes desecrating Jennings’s rights provided under the rules of law. Therefore, while law enforcement officials have great authority, they must obey legal regulations and respect an individual’s liberties to ensure that evidence is acquired lawfully and is admissible in court.
References
CBS Sacramento. (2015). Whatever happened to Penny Parker? How a dedicated detective found her killer 25 years later. CBS News. Web.
Chimel v. California, 395 US 752. (1969). Web.
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 US 477. (1981). Web.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643. (1961). Web.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436. (1966). Web.
Walton, R. H. (Ed.). (2017). Cold case homicides: Practical investigative techniques. CRC Press.