Criminal Law Activity

Case One
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects citizens against
unreasonable searches and seizures. Under the law, citizens can secure their houses, papers, and
effects. Government agencies such as law enforcers cannot conduct unreasonable searches and
seizures. The rights of the citizens guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment are not absolute. The
determination of whether or not the search was unreasonable depends on the circumstances that
surround a particular search. If there is probable cause, then searches and seizures can be
allowed. In addition, seizures and searches can be conducted pursuant to valid warrants.
Similarly, searches and seizures that are conducted without any warrant are deemed to be
unreasonable, and evidence collected through such searches is deemed to be invalid. In the
Herring case, the clerk determined that there was an outstanding warrant. The deputy sheriff
acting on the already existing information, searched Herring’s truck. The deputy sheriff
discovered methamphetamine and a pistol. The deputy sheriff subsequently arrested Herring. In
this case, the evidence can potentially be admitted in a court of law. The actions of the deputy
sheriff were based on probable cause. Even though the warrant had been recalled, the officer
involved did not go out of their way to conduct an unreasonable search. They conducted the
search believing that there was a valid warrant. The evidence can thus be potentially admitted in
a court of law and relied upon to make potential convictions.
Case Two
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States governs criminal
proceedings. Criminal defendants are guaranteed the right to a speedy trial that is free from

CRIMINAL LAW ACTIVITY 3
delays. In addition, criminal defendants have the right to an impartial jury as well as access to a
lawyer. One also needs to know the nature of the charges leveled against them as well as the
evidence that will be used in the criminal proceedings. In this case, the accused was involved in a
car accident. The accused is entitled to counsel based on the Sixth Amendment. However, the
nature of the case means that delays in obtaining the blood sample could potentially result in
justice not being served. In addition, police officers have a probable cause to obtain blood
samples where they suspect that the individual involved in an accident was driving under the
influence. Obtaining blood samples where there is reason to believe that the suspect was driving
under the influence does not violate the rights of the suspect. As a result, I would admit the
evidence and convict the accused on the charge of driving under the influence. While one should
have a right to counsel before police officers can take a blood sample, the right is not absolute.
The circumstances surrounding the case should be used to rule whether or not such an action
would result in the violation of one’s rights.
Case Three
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits excessive fines
and unusual punishment. In the case, William McKinney is complaining about the smoking habit
of his roommate is a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The critical question, in this
case, is what constitutes cruel and unusual fines. Smoking has various known health effects.
People exposed to secondary smoke are also exposed to various known adverse health
consequences of smoking. The warden is thus exposing William to various health risks by
allowing William’s roommate to smoke five packs of cigarettes every day. It is clear that the
action of the warden constitutes cruel and unreasonable punishment. I would therefore rule that

CRIMINAL LAW ACTIVITY 4
McKinney’s right against cruel and unusual punishment is being violated, and the situation
requires proper remedy.
Case Four
Drug addiction is a problem that affects many citizens of the United States. Individuals
who are addicted to drugs require help. Such help may come in the form of medication and
therapies aimed at ensuring that the individual’s life is restored back to the state of normalcy.
The main question, in this case, is whether or not a punishment for drug addiction is cruel and
unusual. In my view, the punishment is both unusual and cruel. Individuals who are addicted to
narcotics need to be helped as opposed to being punished. It is unusual to punish an individual
for a drug problem. Addiction should be handled as a health issue as opposed to being handled as
a legal issue. I also feel that it is cruel for the State of California to sentence drug addicts. It will
be difficult to accommodate the drug addicts in a normal prison system. The prison system could
compound the situation and could result in the lives of the individuals being put in great danger.
Putting the suspect in prison would amount to torture.