Criminal Justice New York Police Officers Vs. Harris Case Study I have a case brief partially completed i just need it finished. The case is New York v. Ha

Criminal Justice New York Police Officers Vs. Harris Case Study I have a case brief partially completed i just need it finished. The case is New York v. Harris (1990).

I have completed the facts, procedural history, legal issues, and the decision. The only thing i need done is the opinion and the analysis.

The opinion is as follows- “the courts opinion contains 2 essential elements

1.) the courts holding- the legal rule that the court has decided to apply to the facts of the case

2.) the courts reasoning- the reasons the court gives to support its holding. in summary fashion list the reasons the court gives for its decision. the court’s opinion consists of how and why the court applies the principle, doctrine, and or rule the facts of the case.

the analysis is as follows- “this is where your thinking and analysis come into play. what legal precedent or precedents did the case set. what is the significance of the courts decision and opinion in support of it. what are the public policy implications of the courts decision? do you agree or disagree with the courts decision and rationale? support your position with sound cogent arguments.”

attached is the part of the case that i have completed

please include citations Facts
On January 1, 1984, New York police officers responded to a call where they found a
Thelma Staton murdered in her own apartment. Through the course of the entire
investigation, the facts of the case all led officers to believe a man named Bernard Harris
was the culprit. On January 16th officers arrived at Harris’ house to detain him and take
him into custody. When officers arrived, although they did not have an arrest warrant,
Harris allowed officers to enter his home. After being read his miranda rights and being
asked multiple questions of what happened between him and the victim, he admitted to
committing the crime.
Once officers finally arrested Harris, he was taken to the police station and was
read his miranda rights once more. After admitting his guilt again, Harris signed an
inculpatory statement (A written statement that incriminates or places guilt on a person).
After being read his miranda rights a third time, police then videotaped an interview
between Harris and the district attorney incriminating himself once more. Throughout the
enitre recording Harris requested the interogation to end multiple times.
Procedural History
The New York trial court had suppressed the first statement of guilt (when officers
arrived at Harris’ home) under Payton v. New York, holding that the fourth amendment
prohibits police from effecting a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s
home in order to make a routine felony arrest. It was also found that the inculpatory
statement was admissable The New York trial court admitted the second statement in
court and after a bench trial, Harris was convicted of second degree murder. The
appellate division affirmed the conviction, but the State Court of Appeals reversed.
Brown v. Illinois rule was applied stating that the signed inculpatory statement was ‘fruit
of an illegal arrest. Therefore the evidence collected during this illegal arrest should be
suppressed when it bears a close relationship to the underlying illegality. The court
deemed this second statement inadmissable.
Legal Issue?
The issue involved in this case is if Harris’ second statement- the written statement
made at the police station- should have been suppressed because the police entered
Harris’ home without a warrant. An arrest warrant only constitutes Harris’ home, not the
police station where he made the second guilty statement. Does the rule that was
applied, Payton v. New York, apply to the police station?
Judgement/ Decision
With a 5-4 majority concluded by Justice Byron R. White, the Supreme Court held that
the exclusionary rule, which is a law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence
in a criminal trial, was designed to protect the physical sanctity of the home, not to
protect suspects from statements made outside of the home when police have a
probable cause for an arrest. Harris was not unlawfully in custody when he was read his
Miranda rights at the station and made the statement in question. This renders the
second statement, admissable in court.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment