Select Page

Assignment DescriptionThroughout the course, you have examined the history and evolution of the U.S. Constitution, the three branches of government, roles and responsibilities, the balance of individual rights versus societal needs in Bill of Rights interpretations, and application based implications. For your final assignment, you will showcase connections between learning and application in a career-specific context.Focusing on the competencies, and to showcase your learning proficiency, prepare a 6–7 page paper addressing two key areas of learning for each competency:The importance of this learning.The application of the learning in a career context.RequirementsWritten communication: Must be free of errors that detract from the overall message.Resources and citations: Format according to APA guideline.Required page count: 6–7, not including the title page or the references page.Required number of references: minimum of 6–7.Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12 point.I have attached previous assignments that I had to complete to assist with this paper.


Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Connecting Your Learning
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Acey Jones
Georgia v. Buckner: The Sixth Amendment
Constitutional Law
The Sixth Amendment
The Sixth Amendment is a 1791 ratification in the Bill of Rights of the United States of
America. The amendment accords defendants the right to a speedy trial which is to be handled
by a community diverse and nonpartisan jury. Bobby Lavon Buckner was facing an indictment
for abducting, abusing sexually and murdering a twelve-year-old girl named Ashleigh Moore in
2003. Bobby Buckner’s case was dismissed after he filed for the dismissal of his indictment in
December 2011 because there was a violation of his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth
Amendment. Buckner was indicted in the year 2007 but had not faced trial four years later
(Georgia v. Buckner, 2013).
Reasons for Delay
Several factors were put into consideration before coming to the judgment of dismissing
Bobby Buckner’s indictment (Georgia v. Buckner, 2013). The first factor for review was the
reasons for the delay. Much of the delay in Buckner’s case was imputed on the series deployment
of the case from one prosecuting attorney to another or the laxity of the prosecuting attorneys.
After the trial court weighed the factors of the delay in an accurate manner, it was found that an
estimate of thirty months of the postponement weighed against the state.
The second factor considered was the case of prejudice. In the motion, Buckner claimed
that there was an incidence of tampering with evidence during the 2003 investigations when a
retired police officer and two police officers, all friends of the Moore family, accessed Ashleigh’s
bedroom before it was fully secured by the investigating officers that were assigned to the case.
Their tampering also involved the removal of potential evidence from the room and warned the
family members against speaking of officers’ access to the bedroom. Bucker’s claims were
supported by evidence that the trial court found, but the state lost the recordings of the
individuals who witnessed the tampering. While some of the witnesses died earlier, some could
not accurately place the distant event. This is prejudice that weighed against the state (O’Rourke,
2014; Georgia v. Buckner, 2013).
Length of Delay
The length of the delay was the third factor to be considered. Particular capaciousness in
seriousness and ramifications of the charges in a case may result in delays; hence the trial court
may acknowledge or tolerate the delays. In Bobby Buckner’s case, however, findings proved that
despite the gravity of his charged, his situation was no more complex when compared to other
cases involving similar serious crimes. The trial court further discovered that investigations on
the Buckner case closed by the time of his indictment. The court then concluded that the fiftythree-month delay in the Buckner case had a length that was uncommon. This delay weighed
heavily against the state.
The Assertion of Rights and Balancing of Factors
The assertion of right was the fourth factor under consideration. The defendant bears the
duty of adducting the right to a speedy trial and placing the state under constant notice. Bobby
Buckner did not assert to his right promptly but waited four years to press for the speedy trial.
Therefore, the delay, in this case, weighs heavily against him. The last factor that the Supreme
Court considered before the dismissal was the balancing of factors. In this case, all the four
Barker Doggett factors balanced just as the trial court had opined (O’Rourke, 2014; WTOC,
2013). Even though Buckner was late to assert on his right to a speedy trial, all the remaining
factors weighed heavily against the state. The state, therefore, concluded that Bobby Buckner’s
right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment was violated hence the dismissal.
Georgia v. Buckner. (2013). S12A1981.
O’Rourke, A. (2014). The Speedy Trial Right and National Security Detentions: Critical
Comments on United States v. Ghailani. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 12(4), 871
WTOC. (2013, February 4). Ga. high court upholds Bobby Buckner ruling. Retrieved from
Acey Jones
Criminal Procedure in Motion
Constitutional Law
The constitution provides the people several rights that protect them from many things:
some of these rights become handy when one finds themselves in trouble with the law. There are
a wide array of constitutional amendments that have been used as a basis in the establishment of
criminal procedure rules. Criminal procedure is basically a set of regulations and rules for
processing individuals through the justice system. It also outlines the defendants’ rights have
from the moment they are arrested through ant possible sentencing and trial as well as the order
of steps by which individual proceeds through the judicial system (Keith, 2015). In the paper two
cases will be identified, explored, and analyzed; one from the U.S supreme court directory
involving criminal procedure issue and another from Wisconsin state involving criminal law.
Conducting case analysis is an important process in the criminal justice field as it provides very
crucial information to law enforcement agencies by looking at crime statistics and revisiting
cases using the host of resources available at one’s disposal.
Key Facts and Issues in the Cases
The first case located from the search in the U.S Supreme court directory which involves
criminal procedure issue is Maryland v. King which is one of the most important cases of its
nature decided by the U.S Supreme Court in decades (Brower, 2013). Among the key facts, in
this case, is that back in 2003, a stranger who had hidden his identity forcefully invaded a
woman’s house of residence in Maryland and then raped her. The woman reported the incidence
immediately and undertook a rape examination. Her sample of DNA sample was acquired, it was
analyzed and recorded on the DNA database of the State, but no match was established
immediately. After seven years, Alonzo King was put under arrest in the same state and charged
with assault but the charges were not related to the 2003 rape incident, and after a sample of his,
DNA was obtained and scrutinized then entered to the Database for Maryland it matched the
2003 rape investigation DNA sample.
After King was indicted by the grand jury of the State on the charges of rape, he vowed
not guilty, and he was in the end convicted of rape. On appeal, the collection of King’s DNA by
the State upon his arrest in the absence of a warrant was a direct defilement of his 4th
Amendment right against any searches of unreasonable nature (Silk, 2015). The State’s plea to
the U.S Supreme Court to get a writ of certiorari was approved, an verbal dispute was heard in
26th February 2013 and three months later, a thin 5-4 majority of the court successfully reversed
the State’s Appeals, making the decision that the DNA law of Maryland did not in any way
infringe the 4th amendment.
There are several key facts and issues present to the court about the second case State v.
Floyd, which involves a criminal law issue in Wisconsin. In the Floyd case, the Supreme Court
considered where a line should be drawn between a “permissible traffic stop and an
impermissibly extended stop under the 14th Amendment” (Lisa, 2017). Floyd, who is the
defendant, was stopped because of his cars registration state as being suspended. This stop took
place within Racine city which is well known for numerous gang activities and drugs. The
officer noticed that near every vent in the vehicle there where air fresheners which were an
indication of drug-related activity, he also discovered that Floyd had no driving license and
insurance information. He called for a cover squad backup, and after a few minutes, he asked the
defendant to exit his vehicle to explain the citations made, asked to execute a search and the
defendant agreed.
Following the search, illegal drugs were found in the car led to the case charges. The
motion of Floyd to quash drug evidence was denied by the circuit court, and the ruling was
affirmed. The argument on the state’s side was that the search performed was reasonably proper
as it took place in the course of a lawful traffic stop and Floyd also consented for it (Lisa, 2017).
On the other hand, Floyd argued that the traffic stop should have elapsed prior to the search and
thus he was seized unlawfully when the search was being conducted, rendering his consent void.
Laws Used in Deciding
Several laws were relied on by the courts in making or reaching the own decisions for the
two cases. In criminal procedure issue case, Maryland v. King the 4th Amendment was applied to
an gradually more common fact of contemporary law enforcement, DNA collection. (Brower,
2013). The Maryland DNA Law was also considered by the court in reaching the decision. In the
criminal law case, State v. Floyd the laws relied upon by the court was the Fourth Amendment
which according to the court did not prevent the search provided it was within the defendant’s
Connection between Authority and Court Ruling
The connection between the authority of the 4th amendment and the court’s ruling on
Maryland v. King is in that, as the court did not clearly uphold the Maryland DNA law, but
confirmed that the Warrant Clause and Reasonableness clause of the 4th Amendment are separate
standards. Under such an interpretation, the Warrant Clause is solely applicable once the actual
warrant is issued, and the Reasonable clause gives the predominant guidepost applicable when
no warrant is present. The State of Maryland and the country concurred on this stating that the
yardstick of the 4th amendment is always reasonableness, not just an individualized suspicion
(Silk, 2015). In the second case, State v. Floyd, the connection between the authority and the
court’s ruling is that as the 4th amendment requires there was the presence of voluntary consent
that made the search constitutionally right.
Based on the courts’ decisions some interpretations of constitutional protections can be
derived. For Maryland v. King, the interpretations are that the warrantless collection of DNA
from arrested persons as it is in the case of King is not unreasonable based on the provisions of
the 4th Amendment. This amendment protects persons from unreasonable warrantless searches,
but there are exceptions to this which vary in different states. The Maryland DNA law, for
instance, authorizes the state’s law enforcement agencies to obtain DNA samples from any
person charged with violence related crimes or any attempt to commit such, with or without
consent (Brower, 2013). All the fifty states, including Maryland, require the collection of felony
convicts DNA.
Another interpretation of constitutional protection based on the court ruling on State v.
Floyd is that the 14h amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches but with the
persons consent and within some acceptable jurisdictions warrantless searches can be contacted
(Lisa, 2017). Provided there is consent, and no extortion, cuffing, threats, or weapons which may
affect voluntariness such a search is constitutionally sound.
Philosophical Underpinnings and Public Policy Influences
Further, there are notable philosophical underpinnings and public policy influence from
the case analysis. These include the special consideration of the value component of policy. A
relatively small number of principal values have influenced the policies and administration
universally. The clusters of values, which is the substance of policy philosophy filter into the
policy process through a country’s or a state’s political culture, the judicial or legal system, and
the psychological predispositions of decision makers (Von Essen & Allen, 2017). Policy
philosophies are also highly influential in the conceptions of the interest of the general public.
This is evident from the proceedings and rulings in the two cases discussed.
Case Analysis Importance
Conducting the case analysis is of great importance to a career in the criminal justice field. This
is because of the significant contribution that the process of crime analysis which is conducted
my criminologists has to the field as it aids in the establishment of patterns of crime to glean a
variety of answers about deviant behavior and to provide crucial information needed by law
enforcement agencies (Keith, 2015). Crime analysis plays an indispensable function and
significantly enhances the investigative capabilities of law enforcement.
Legal research plays a critical role as it acts as a gateway to the location of cases that
provide an interpretation of the key areas of procedural and substantive law. In the criminal
justice field and the careers within its scope, conducting a case analysis such as the one
conducted above for two cases is highly important as it generates crucial information used by
law enforcement agencies and enhances the investigative capabilities of law enforcement In
Brower, G. (2013). Maryland v. King: Possibly The Most Important Criminal Procedure Case in
Decades. Federalist Society, 29.
Keith, T. L. (2015). The Effectiveness of an Evidenced-Based Decision Making Program in
Criminal Justice Systems.
Lawless, Lisa. (2017, December). Top 10 Recent Wisconsin Supreme Court Decisions.
Retrieved from:
Silk, J. (2015). Calling Out Maryland v. King: DNA, Cell Phones, and the Fourth Amendment.
Von Essen, E., & Allen, M. P. (2017). Reconsidering illegal hunting as a crime of dissent:
Implication for justice and deliberative uptake. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 11(2),

Purchase answer to see full

Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHSELP