Why are police–probation partnerships controversial?
What will be an ideal response?
These and other police–probation partnerships are controversial from a Fourth Amendment standpoint in that they seem to have search-and-seizure implications. On one hand, these partnerships may be highly effective in reducing crime. On the other hand, critics of police–probation partnerships claim that they are little more than a way to circumvent the Fourth Amendment's probable cause and warrant requirements. In other words, critics claim that police officers use probation officers as "stalking horses" to skirt the Fourth Amendment. The California Supreme Court's Bravo decision (discussed earlier), for example, permits warrantless, suspicionless searches of probationers, even by police officers.
You might also like to view...
The Miranda warning is required during questioning from one private citizen to another private citizen
a. True b. False Indicate whether the statement is true or false
If a local dry cleaner dump used toxic chemicals behind their store, they have committed which of the following?
a. Illegal dumping of hazardous waste b. Illegal emissions c. International environmental crime d. Harmful destruction of property and wildlife
Which of the following organized crime groups is considered to be an underground criminal society based in Hong Kong that controls secret markets and bus routes and are often involved in money laundering and drug trafficking?
a. Triads b. Red Wa c. Fuk Ching d. Jao Pho
Conflict Model:
What will be an ideal response?