The paradox of private policing case study

Jane is a police officer for the Your City police department. Like most cops, she doesn’t make enough money and she decided to moonlight as private security at a local mall. The mall is in a bad part of town and there has been significant gang activity at the mall and several rapes and the discharge of weapons. One night, Jane heard a women screaming. She ran toward the screams and found some kids kicking a young woman. Jane called for back up. Upon arrival, some of the youth yelled “pig” at Jane. Jane broke up the fight and upon doing so – noticed that there were several back packs and purses up against a wall near where the incident occurred. Jane quickly gathered these up and secured them. After help arrived, she searched the bags and the kids. She found weapons and drugs. Jane had the kids arrested and they were later charged with various crimes including illegal possession of controlled substances and weapons charges. Their lawyer, Ima Shyster, argued that Jane violated the kids rights in conducting the search and that the exclusionary rule should bar the evidence of the drugs and weapons. The prosecutor argued that Jane was working as a private guard at the time and the exclusionary rule didn’t apply. She also argued even if it did – there were exceptions to the warrant requirement which caused the search to be legal. Analyze the prosecutor’s arguments and tell me whether the evidence comes in – or not.


"Is this question part of your assignment? We Can Help!"