The Edward’s Rule is the rule that forbids an officer of the law to establish interrogation of a criminal suspect who has already requested for a lawyer before the lawyer has been provided for him or her. Any statements given after the requesting for an attorney are considered impermissible unless the suspect confesses after the lawyer is made available to him or her or if the attorney initiates any other communication needed with the officers of the law. Any confessions given by the suspect in violation to this rule are considered an offence against the fifth amendment of the defendant’s right. The Fifth Amendment in the Constitution of the United States safeguards individuals from being witnesses in a criminal case against themselves .The amendment enables a suspect to decline answering questions or making statements that may further incriminate them and it requires that any offence against the law can only be tried only by a grand jury.
The Fifth Amendment and The Edward’s Rule go hand in hand as a violation of the rule also violates the Fifth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment of Constitution of the United States safeguards the people from unnecessary searches unless there’s probable cause which has been supported by any affirmation to grant a warrant for the search. The Sixth Amendment states that the accused shall enjoy the right to a quick and public trial by an unprejudiced jury where the crime that has been committed has been ascertained by the law and there’s information regarding the nature and cause of the accusation and there are witnesses to confront the accused against him or her, and the right to have the assistance of counsel for his or her defense. The fourteenth amendment protects any citizen of the United States from being deprived the right to live, right to freedom, without any ground and the right to be protected equally by the law. The suspect in the case given, is thereby protected by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution the United States (Gonzalez & Waddington, 2018) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The situation given, officer Jones read the Miranda Laws to the suspect two times as it is required of him so as to be told of the Fifth Amendment right, of not making any statement that may incriminate him against himself. The suspect in the situation at question, gives a confession to committing the shop lifting offence he is held in custody for to the detective whereby he is interrogated even after asking for a lawyer, before the lawyer is made available to him. The statement he gives to the detective is therefore not admissible as it goes against the Edward Rule which does not allow any officer to interrogate a suspect who has already requested for a lawyer. The detective violated the Edward Rule and in so doing, violated the right of the suspect in accordance to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which safeguards the suspect from confessing or admitting to anything that makes him testify against himself (Gonzalez & Waddington, 2018) .
The rules, requirements of law enforcement and the law enforcement regulatory procedures that are key in the collection of evidence process include, arrival of the crime scene where boundaries are established and the crime scene is secured and documentation of actions and observations is done. The preliminary documentation and security evaluation of the crime scene is done, where there a plan is formulated for the collection of evidence. There scene is then searched for any trace evidence and when found, it is photographed and noted. The crime scene is searched again for biological evidence for example blood and when identified, a sample is collected for analysis. The crime scene is photographed and the evidence collected is properly packaged. Documentation of what happened to the evidence from the time of collection to its presentation to court is then maintained.
The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States comprise of cases in the Supreme Court docket. The self-incrimination clause in the Fifth Amendment concerns of incrimination that only happens in the courtroom. The sixth amendment includes enabling the accused to have a speedy and public trial in the courtroom after his offence has determined. The fourteenth amendment protects the right of liberty of the accused unless there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the crime in a court of law (Richman, 2014) .
References
Gonzalez & Waddington, L. (2018). The Fifth Amendment (Miranda) Right to Counsel -. Retrieved from http://www.ucmjdefense.com/resources/self-incrimination/effect-of-implementing-the-rights/the-fifth-amendment-miranda-right-to-counsel.html
Richman, D. (2014). Fifteen Years of Supreme Court Criminal Procedure Work: Three Constitutional Brushes. SSRN Electronic Journal . doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2504692
