Seattle University Acceptance Rate, SAT/ACT Scores, GPA

Seattle University is a private Jesuit university with an acceptance rate of 76%. Located on a 48-acre campus in Seattles Capitol Hill neighborhood, Seattle University offers 65 undergraduate and over 50 graduate programs. Classes tend to be small with an average size of 18, and the university has a healthy 11-to-1  student / faculty ratio. Seattle has a 12-course core curriculum that culminates in a major-specific capstone course. In athletics, the Seattle Redhawks compete in the NCAA Division I in the  Western Athletic Conference. Considering applying to Seattle University? Here are the admissions statistics you should know, including average SAT/ACT scores and GPAs of admitted students. Acceptance Rate During the 2017-18 admissions cycle, Seattle University had an acceptance rate of 76%. This means that for every 100 students who applied, 76 students were admitted, making Seattle Us admissions process somewhat competitive. Admissions Statistics (2017-18) Number of Applicants 8,640 Percent Admitted 76% Percent Admitted Who Enrolled (Yield) 17% SAT Scores and Requirements Seattle University requires that all applicants submit either SAT or ACT scores. During the 2017-18 admissions cycle, 75% of admitted students submitted SAT scores. SAT Range (Admitted Students) Section 25th Percentile 75th Percentile ERW 570 660 Math 560 660 ERW=Evidence-Based Reading and Writing This admissions data tells us that most of Seattle Universitys admitted students fall within the top 35% nationally on the SAT. For the evidence-based reading and writing section, 50% of students admitted to Seattle University scored between 570 and 660, while 25% scored below 570 and 25% scored above 660. On the math section, 50% of admitted students scored between 560 and 660, while 25% scored below 560 and 25% scored above 660. Applicants with a composite SAT score of 1320 or higher will have particularly competitive chances at Seattle University. Requirements Seattle University does not require the SAT writing section. Note that Seattle participates in the scorechoice program, which means that the admissions office will consider your highest score from each individual section across all SAT test dates. ACT Scores and Requirements Seattle University requires that all applicants submit either SAT or ACT scores. During the 2017-18 admissions cycle, 39% of admitted students submitted ACT scores. ACT Range (Admitted Students) Section 25th Percentile 75th Percentile English 24 32 Math 23 28 Composite 24 30 This admissions data tells us that most of Seattle Universitys admitted students fall within the  top 26% nationally  on the ACT. The middle 50% of students admitted to Seattle University received a composite ACT score between 24 and 30, while 25% scored above 30 and 25% scored below 24. Requirements Seattle University does not require the ACT writing section. Unlike many universities, Seattle superscores ACT results; your highest subscores from multiple ACT sittings will be considered. GPA In 2018, the average high school GPA of Seattle Universitys incoming freshmen class was 3.62, and 42% of incoming students had average GPAs of 3.75 and above. These results suggest that most successful applicants to Seattle University have primarily A grades. Self-Reported GPA/SAT/ACT Graph Seattle University Applicants Self-Reported GPA/SAT/ACT Graph. Data courtesy of Cappex. The admissions data in the graph is self-reported by applicants to Seattle University. GPAs are unweighted. Find out how you compare to accepted students, see the real-time graph, and calculate your chances of getting in  with a free Cappex account. Admissions Chances Seattle University, which accepts just over three-quarters of applicants, has a somewhat competitive admissions pool with above average GPAs and SAT/ACT scores. However, Seattle University has a  holistic admissions  process involving other factors beyond your grades and test scores. A  strong application  essay  and  glowing letters of recommendation  can strengthen your application, as can participation in  meaningful extracurricular activities  and a  rigorous course schedule. Students with particularly compelling stories or achievements can still receive serious consideration even if their test scores are outside Seattles average range. Seattle University offers freshman applicants  the opportunity to apply for Direct Entry to specific majors.  Note that some programs require additional credit requirements and minimum test scores for Direct Entry. In the graph above, the blue and green dots represent students who were admitted to Seattle University. Most had SAT scores of 1050 or higher (ERWM), an ACT composite score of 22 or higher, and a high school average of a B or higher. Grades and test scores above these lower ranges will improve your chances, and you can see that many admitted students had grades in the A range. If You Like Seattle University, You May Also Like These Schools University of WashingtonGonzaga UniversityNew York UniversityOregon State UniversityStanford UniversityUniversity of San DiegoLewis Clark CollegeLoyola Marymount UniversityUniversity of OregonSanta Clara University All admissions data has been sourced from the National Center for Education Statistics and Seattle University Undergraduate Admissions Office.

Illusion Versus Reality in Death of a Salesman Essay

Illusion Versus Reality in Death of a Salesman A major theme and source of conflict throughout Millers play, Death of a Salesman, is the Loman familys inability to distinguish between reality and illusion. This is particularly evident in the father, Willy Loman. Willy has created a fantasy world for himself and his family. In this world, he and his sons are men of greatness that have what it takes to make it in the business environment. In reality, none of them can achieve greatness until they confront and deal with this illusion. Willys most prominent illusion is that success is dependant upon popularity and having personal attractiveness. Willy builds his entire life around this idea and teaches it to his children.†¦show more content†¦This is what Willy has been trying to emulate his entire life. Willys need to feel well-liked is so strong that he often makes up lies about his popularity and success. At times, Willy even believes these lies himself. At one point in the play, Willy tells his family of how well-liked he is in all of his towns and how vital he is to New England. Later, however, he tells Linda that no one remembers him and that the people laugh at him behind his back. As this demonstrates, Willys need to feel well-liked also causes him to become intensely paranoid. When his son, Biff, for example, is trying to explain why he cannot become successful, Willy believes that Biff is just trying to spite him. Unfortunately, Willy never realizes that his values are flawed. As Biff points out at the end of the play, he had the wrong dreams. In many ways Biff is similar to his father. In the beginning of the play we see that Biff shares many of the same ideas as Willy. He values being well-liked above everything else and sees little value in being smart or honest. One of Biffs main flaws is his tendency to steal. Early in the play we learn that he has stolen a football from the school locker. When Willy finds out about this, instead of disciplining Biff, he says that the coach will probably congratulate him on his initiative. We also learn that Biff once stole a box of basketballs from Bill Oliver. This foreshadows the scene in which Biff steals BillShow MoreRelated The Requiem Scene in Arthur Millers Death of a Salesman Essay740 Words   |  3 PagesThe Requiem Scene in Arthur Millers Death of a Salesman The death of Willy Loman was remembered by few.   He was mourned not because of his tragic death but because of his despairing life.   The Requiem scene in Death of a Salesman describes the ill-attended funeral of Willy, the tragic hero who struggled to fulfill his vision of the American Dream.   This scene brings closure to the play because the audience realizes that only in death is Willy able to accept the failure and false success thatRead MoreComparison of Oedipus the King and Death of a Salesman Essay1025 Words   |  5 Pagesin the essay. Oedipus the King opens in a Greek amphitheatre depicting the front of a Theban palace. Throughout the play, the setting remains constant. This changes to a more fast-paced play with different settings in different places in Death of a Salesman. Dramatic irony in Oedipus the King is evident throughout, which is similar to the latter play, but in a different form. In here, the irony is evident. Oedipus the King revolves around characters attempts to change their destiny (which fails)Read MoreDeath Of A Salesman Self Deception Essay1447 Words   |  6 PagesAn individual’s ability to successfully recognize the reality from illusions is significantly influenced by their understanding of themselves. Many choose to use self-perception to prevent themselves from the realization of living through self-deception. However, in Arthur Miller’s modern play, Death of a Salesman, Miller explores the relationship between self-deception and reality through the character development of Biff Loman. Initially, Biff’s perception of himself is tremendously influencedRead MoreDeath Of A Salesman By Arthur Miller1870 Words   |  8 Pages In Arthur Miller s play, Death of a Salesman, the major theme as well as the main source of conflict is Willy s inability to distinguish between reality and illusion. Willy has created a fantasy world for himself and his family, a world in which he and his sons are great men who have what it takes to make it in the context of business and free enterprise. In reality, none of them can achieve greatness until they confront and deal with this illusion. An illusion is some event or object thatRead MoreIn Death of a Salesman as well as in American Beauty, the main conflicts revolve around a great1300 Words   |  6 PagesIn Death of a Salesman as well as in American Beauty, the main conflicts revolve around a great basic problem, which is the appearance as a way of life and expression to the outside. Following this, they will all problems relating to the relationships between the characters, and the lack of communication in the families. It could also be seen in both works that the characters go through great efforts pretending to be happy with themselves. Willy Loman which may sound Low Man- man, writersRead MoreCharacter Comparison906 Words   |  4 PagesName Tutor Course Date Blanche De Bois versus Willy Loman Blanche Du Boise is a character in Tennesse‘s fictional plain by the title a street car named desire while Willy Loman is a fictional character in Arthurs miller play; death of a sales man. Blanche in the play street car named desire is an extremely complicated character who appears to have internal conflicts throughout the play. She appears to be from the upper class society as her name suggests and upon meeting her she appears culturedRead MoreDeath of a Salesman: An Ending More Familiar Than Strange Essays1643 Words   |  7 PagesArthur Miller (1915-2005) born in Manhattan, but lived in Brooklyn when he was a teenager. He lived with his father during, the depression. This play â€Å" Death of a salesman† makes me think that growing up in such an eventful time has a lot to do with how the elements of his drama revolves around life. His drama portrays the gloom and the sadness with some happy moments. Life brings out the elements, where the author stages the event an d the characters play them out. The drama ofRead MoreCompare/Contrast Willy Loman (Death of a Salesman) and Walter Lee Younger (a Raisin in the Sun)2823 Words   |  12 Pagesacquire such extreme wealth, he create a sense of false reality for himself, his common sense is blurred, and he sees opportunities where there are none. Characters Walter Lee Younger and Willy Loman are prime examples of this, both pinning their hopes on unattainable dreams to hide the feelings of failure. The theme of illusion versus reality is present in both Lorraine Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun and Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman through the portrayal of main characters Walter and WillyRead MoreThe Power of Irony in The Death of a Salesman Essay1778 Words   |  8 PagesRenata Lemos English 102 Professor: Jeff Ousborne 04/05/2013 The Power of Irony on â€Å"The Death of a Salesman† Authors use irony in literature in order to give double meanings and make it more interesting to the reader. In the play â€Å" The Death of a Salesman† Arthur Miller uses irony as a strong writing technique in order to express the characters behavior. In â€Å"The Death of a Salesman† by Arthur Miller moments of situational and dramatic irony helps to illustrate the storys theme in whichRead MoreWhos Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Articulates the Crises of Contemporary Western Civilization867 Words   |  4 Pagescritiqued America as it moved from confidence to doubt. In a land of success they wrote obsessively of the unsuccessful. Their characters such as Blanch Du Bois in Street Car Named Desire(1947), Joe Keller in All My Sons (1947), Willie Loman in Death of a Salesman (1949) and Maggie the Cat in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958) all lead posthumous lives. These are souls that have been lost as a consequence of the national myth of American Dream. In their delineation the authors simultaneously attack and

Opposition to Mandatory Uniforms Essay Example For Students

Opposition to Mandatory Uniforms Essay Everyone has their own style! Every student is different, so why not let them show it? Everyone dresses differently and that is what make them so unique. If you make someone wear uniforms, you are suffocating someones sense of personality. That is why I think that uniforms are not efficient. I am going to talk about culture and cost, individuality and uniqueness, and other cons that are against uniforms. This will cover all the disadvantages about uniforms needed in public schools all over Canada. Culture and cost are probably the main cons that are against uniforms. I think that some parents and children might have religious objections to uniforms. Others wont participate for aesthetic reasons. If given a choice, it is hard to imagine that most teenagers will opt to not wearing uniforms. Most uniforms are expensive these days and some parents might have hard time to pay for it. In addition, they will have to buy regular clothes and uniforms. The parent who really doesnt want the school to dress their child and who is trying to raise an independent-thinking child should be able to opt-out for any reasons, said Larry Frankel, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Pennsylvania. The American Civil Liberties Union also stated that, Purchasing a uniform is a mandatory cost which some disadvantaged parents are unable to afford. I strongly believe in these statements and it also proves my point. Individuality and uniqueness are some things that every kid has. This is what make all and every one of them unique and different. But when uniform are considered, they are not able to show their own way of style. All of them look the same. I think that hygiene, looks and personalities have to do with normal clothes, not uniforms. So unless people find a way to be perfect in everyones opinion, teasing and discrimination, debates on uniforms wont stop. My daughter likes to be individual, to wear what she wants. She doesnt want to have to wear what everyone else is wearing. It doesnt make her feel good about herself; it doesnt make her feel special, said a mother of a daughter in Pennsylvania. Looks like this mother really cares about her daughters personality. There are many other arguments against uniforms. First, they have no effect on safety or violence. Second, they have no direct bearing on students academic achievement. Third, they teach an undesirable lesson about making choices based on internal values. And the fourth one, they violate students rights to free expression and individuality. Many students do get uncomfortable to uniforms and they should have the right to opt-out for this. Uniforms wont-by themselves-make students safer or smarter, said the Philadelphia board of education president, Pedro A. Ramos, in a press release. Children have strong rights which come to this point, All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development, said the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights. I chose this quote because this isnt just for adults, it is for children too.

Аranklin Police Departments an Example of the Topic Government and Law Essays by

Ð ranklin Police Departments by Expert Tutor Maya | 17 Aug 2016 Policy and procedures for interrogations background Custodial interrogations of suspects and the statements and confessions that are elicited are vitally important in the preparation of criminal cases. Confessions speed up the procedures in our criminal justice system since it avoids going through the lengthy trial. It also avoids delays in the criminal prosecutions of the accused and helps in the reduction of criminal cases already filed in courts. The ends of justice, however, will not be attained if the suspects will be physical, mentally or emotionally coerced into making admissions and confessions about the commission of a crime. It is hereby the policy of the Franklin Police Department that all confessions coming from the accused must be free, voluntarily and intelligently taken by a police officer. Need essay sample on "ranklin Police Departments" topic? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you Proceed To ensure that written statements and confessions of the accused will be admissible in evidence, statements and confessions must be given voluntarily and with due consideration for the suspects right to silence and right to counsel. Therefore, it is the policy of this law enforcement agency that all officers not only understand the relevant laws and court opinions but they must also strictly follow this agency policy in order to guard against any charges of police coercion during interrogation. Definitions Custody: A custodial situation exists when an officer tells a suspect that he is under arrest. Comments: Critiques It has been held in the case of Stansbury v. California (513 US 318) that an officer's views concerning the nature of an interrogation, or beliefs concerning the potential culpability of the individual being questioned, may be one among many factors that bear upon the assessment whether that individual was in custody, but only if the officer's views or beliefs were somehow manifested to the individual under interrogation and would have affected how a reasonable person in that position would perceive his or her freedom to leave. In this case, once an officer tells a suspect that he is under arrest for the commission of the crime, it follows that the suspect is already in custody. The suspect is thereby restricted and limited in his freedom of movement. However, not all instances of arrests follow the standard procedure of the police officer telling the suspect that he is under arrest. Most of the time, the suspect is subjected to a situation where he is deprived of his freedom of movement but he is yet to be informed that he is under arrest. In this scenario, the suspect must be warned of his Miranda Rights prior to interrogation. The ultimate test actually is not the declaration of the police officer that the person is under arrest rather whether there is a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest. This was the doctrine enunciated in California v. Beheler (464 US 1121) This means that once the suspect is thrust in an unfamiliar atmosphere together with the police officers and he is restricted in his freedom of movement then he is under police custody. Consider also the case of Orozco v. Texas (394 US 324). In this case the US Supreme Court ruled that the use of admissions at petitioner's trial for murder which were obtained by officers who, while he was in his bedroom at the boarding house where he lived, questioned him about incriminating facts without first giving him the Miranda warnings was held to have violated his right against self-incrimination. It must be noted herein that though the suspect was in a familiar location, he was still deprived of freedom in a significant away. Interrogation: Interrogation is the direct questioning of a suspect about a crime or suspected crime. In the case of Miranda v. Arizona (384 US 436), the coercive nature of custodial interrogations was discussed. This case defined custodial interrogation as questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. The direct questioning of a suspect about the commission of a crime is considered an interrogation because here the police officers directly ask from the suspect whether he is involved in the commission of a crime. This definition, however, is incomplete as it fails to take into account those statements volunteered by the suspect and any act of police officer which is functionally equivalent of questioning whereby the police officers elicit incrimination response from the suspect. Thus, if the police officer uses deceptive strategies such as the giving of false and inaccurate legal advice to clients then that is covered by the Miranda Warnings. For instance, in the case of Lynum v. Illinois (372 US 528), the suspect was forced to confessing to the crime after being threatened by the police officers that her children may be taken by relief authorities. In these cases, there is no direct questioning of a suspect yet the police officer is able to elicit the incriminating response from the suspect. Procedure Officers shall comply with the following procedures regarding the taking of custodial statements and confessions. 1. During custodial interrogation, officers should employ the question first interrogation technique. The question first technique involves the interrogator first questioning the suspect until sufficient incriminating statements are made, taking a brief break, then providing Miranda warnings to the suspect, then repeat the interrogation until the questioner gets the answers that the suspect already provided once. This procedure is flawed. If this procedure will be adopted then any confession obtained from such questioning will be tainted with illegality. The suspect will only move for the suppression of evidence in court so that the written confessions will not be admitted as evidence. When this happens and there is no other physical evidence available to convict the accused, then the case may only be dismissed. Under the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. The case also explicitly declared that if the suspect indicates, prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must stop. If he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present. It needs to be emphasized that even if the individual answers some questions during in-custody interrogation, he has not waived his privilege, and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter. 2. The following represent examples of situations that do not require the issuance of Miranda warnings. Investigatory stop and frisk. Following the doctrine enunciated in the case of Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1, law enforcement officers may base on reasonable suspicion stop a person in a public place and ask questions to determine if the person has committed or is about to commit an offense and to frisk the person for weapons if the officer has reasonable concern for his or her own personal safety. In this case, the police officers need only show that at the time of the stop they observed an unusual conduct that led them to reasonably conclude that (1) that criminal activity is about to take place or that criminal activity has just taken place and (2) that the person with whom he or she is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous. Thus, if the police officer discovers any evidence of a crime, then this evidence will be admissible as evidence against the suspect. In these cases, the suspect does not have the privilege of the Miranda Warning because he is not under any intimidating, threatening and coercive environment which the law seeks to protect him from during custodial investigations. Also, the Miranda warnings seek to protect the suspect from the possibility that he may make statements that will incriminate himself. However, once the accused is taken into custody by law enforcement officers and he is deprived of his freedom, it is at this point that the Miranda warnings must be given prior to any questioning that may be conducted by the police officers. Questioning during a routine traffic stop or for a minor violation; to include driving while intoxicated (DWI) stops. Law enforcement officers have the duty and responsibility to establish checkpoints and make stops of moving vehicles. This is in connection with the exercise of police power of the state which is for the benefit of the greater number of people. This way, the law enforcement officers get to stop people from driving while being under the influence of alcohol and avoid accidents in the streets. In these cases, the law enforcement officers need not explain to the suspect the Miranda warnings because just like in the first scenario, the reason for the giving of Miranda Warnings does not exist. There is no intimidating, coercive, and threatening environment which is usually present during custodial investigations. There is also no need for incriminating statements to be taken from the suspect because he can at any time be subjected to tests to confirm if his alcohol level is up. Any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers during routine traffic stops without first reciting the Miranda Warning is valid and constitutional. Any evidence against the accused that the police officer may discover as a result of these questioning is admissible in evidence. Consider the case of Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730. In this case, a Texas police officer stopped a car being driven by Brown in a routine drivers checkpoint. While he was standing alongside the drivers window, he asked for the drivers license. At the same time, the police officer pointed his flashlight inside the car and noticed that between the two middle fingers of Browns right hand was a party balloon. Brown dropped the balloon to the seat beside him to open the glove compartment. Knowing that narcotics were frequently packaged in such balloons, he shifted his position to obtain a better view of what is inside the glove compartment. He noticed several small plastic vials, quantities of loose white powder and an open bag of party balloons. When Brown failed to show his drivers license, the police officer instructed him to get out of the car. He picked the green balloon which seemed to contain a powdery substance. The police officer then informed Brown that he was under arrest. The i llegal contraband found inside the car was seized. In these cases, the suspect does not have the benefit of Miranda Warning and he may be arrested even without it. However, after his arrest and he is taken into custody by the law enforcement officers, the requirement of Miranda Warning must be observed prior to any questioning initiated by police officers. During routine questioning at the scene of an incident or crime. The police officers usually conduct routine questioning at the scene of the crime. They ask the people within the vicinity of the place of the commission of the crime to determine whether the people have noticed something unusual which may help in the resolution of the crime. If a neighbor happens to be approached by the police officers and he is asked routine questions, and in the course of such questioning he confesses to the commission of the crime, the confession is admissible in evidence against the neighbor. These kinds of questioning usually happen within the confines of the house of the person and so it is not possible to argue that the person was coerced, threatened and intimidated to make such a confession because such is not present in these cases. The police officers must, however, be warned that it is not an absolute rule that questioning inside the house of the suspect does not require the Miranda warning. Under the authority of the case of Orozco v. Texas, if the suspect was surrounded by 4 police officers in his own home where he was deprived of his freedom, he is considered to be under arrest and the Miranda warning must be given to him prior to any questioning During voluntary appearances at the police facility. In the case of Garrison v. Commonwealth, 36 Va. App. 298, The Supreme Court has stated: Custody does not result merely because an individual is questioned in a coercive environment, or is the 'focus' of a criminal investigation. A person's voluntary appearance at a police station, where he is immediately advised that he is not under arrest and from which he leaves 'without hindrance' [sic] at the end of an interview, indicates that he is not in custody 'or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.'" The case of Oregon v. Mathiason 492 U.S. 492 is instructive on the point of voluntary appearance of the suspect at the police facility. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that, the act of a suspect involuntarily going over to the police facility after being invited by the police officer, and after being informed that he was not under arrest and that he is free to leave anytime he wants is not the custodial interrogation covered by the requirement of the Miranda warning. The court declared that In the present case, however, there is no indication that the questioning took place in a context where respondent's freedom to depart was restricted in any way. He came voluntarily to the police station, where he was immediately informed that he was not under arrest. At the close of a -hour interview, respondent did, in fact, leave the police station without hindrance. It is clear from these facts that Mathiason was not in custody "or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any signi ficant way." It must, however, be emphasized that it is immaterial that it is at the initiative of the suspect that he is in a police facility. Even if the suspect himself voluntary goes to the police facility, coercion, intimidation, and threats may still be present at the moment the interrogation commences. Thus, if at first instance there was no intimidation present if later on the suspect no longer wishes to continue with the interrogation, but the police officers insist. Subsequently, he confessed to the crime under compulsion of physical harm, there will still be the violation of the suspects constitutional rights against self-incrimination. When information or statements are made spontaneously, voluntarily and without prompting by police. Statements spontaneously and voluntarily made by the person confessing to a crime is not covered by the protection of the Miranda Warning. It must be emphasized that the purpose of Miranda warning is not to hamper the police officers performance of their duties. It is not intended to restrict them in enforcing the law. Thus, if the police officers did not have the opportunity to inform the suspect of the Miranda warning and the latter confesses to the crime, the evidence will still be admissible. To avoid the possibility of the suspect retracting his confessions it is advisable if the suspect will sign the confessions he made and he should be asked to execute an affidavit that he was not in any way harmed or coerced by the police officers in making the confession. It would also be advisable if there will be present at the time he gives his voluntary and spontaneous statements a lawyer or any of the suspects relatives. When the officer needs information to end an ongoing criminal activity such as kidnapping. There are peculiar situations when the police officers need to do away with the police manual and instead become spontaneous in reacting to crimes. When a criminal activity is ongoing the police officer needs every bit of information that may help in avoiding loss of life and property. In these cases, taking into consideration the emergency nature of the situation, the police officer is not expected to adhere to the strict requirements of the Miranda doctrine. When the officer believes that the public safety is at risk such as questioning that might locate a victim or save a human life. Very similar to the previous exception is the public safety exception which is best explained in the case of New York v. Quarles (467 US 649). In this case, two New York City police officers were approached by a woman. She reported to them that she had just been raped by a man who was now inside a nearby supermarket. She then described the man and informed them that he had been armed with a handgun. When the suspect saw one of the police officers entering the store he immediately ran to the back of the store. The officer chased him down, handcuffed him, and pat-searched him for weapons. The police officers, however, did not find a weapon during the past search though they noticed that he had a holster that was empty. They immediately asked him where the gun was located. Quarles nodded in the direction of some empty cartons and responded, "The gun is over th ere." Officers then recovered the weapon. In this case, if not for the circumstance of public safety the response made by the suspect telling the officers of the location of the gun would not have been admissible in evidence. Obviously, if the gun will not be retrieved by police officers and will remain inside the supermarket, such pose a continued danger to the public considering that any person may pick it up and use it. 3. Invoking the Right to Silence Officers may interrogate a suspect who has previously invoked his right to silence, if, after the passage of time, the suspect initiates communication with officers. Prior to questioning, however, Miranda Warnings shall be re-administered and a waiver obtained. It is possible that in the middle custodial investigation, the suspect may invoke his right to silence. In this case, the police officers shall terminate the questioning and respect the wishes of the suspect. However, if the suspect, later on, decides to communicate with the police officers, they must ensure that the warnings must re-administered to the suspect and that he must sign a waiver form before questioning may begin. 4. Invoking the Right to Counsel A. If a suspect waives his right to counsel, a waiver shall be obtained prior to questioning. When a suspect makes reference to counsel but his intentions are unclear, officers may question the suspect further to clarify his intentions. If the suspect indicates to the police officers at any time during the questioning that the suspect desires to consult with his lawyer, the investigation and interrogation shall immediately cease and he should be allowed to communicate with his lawyer. Efforts must be made so that the lawyer of choice of the suspect will be available. In case the suspect is an indigent and he cannot afford the services of a lawyer, a public lawyer will be made available When a suspect invokes his right to counsel, police may reinitiate questioning if the suspect does not obtain counsel in a reasonable amount of time B. When a suspect invokes his right to counsel, police may reinitiate questioning if the suspect does not obtain counsel in a reasonable amount of time. If the suspect invokes his right to counsel, the questioning and interrogation shall immediately cease. In case, the client cannot afford the services of a lawyer but he has declared that he needs to consult with a lawyer, the police may not reinitiate questioning unless a lawyer has been made available to help the suspect. Bibliographies California v. Beheler (464 US 1121 Garrison v. Commonwealth, 36 Va. App. 298 Lynumm v. Illinois (372 US 528 Miranda v. Arizona (384 US 436), New York v. Quarles (467 US 649 Orozco v. Texas (394 US 324) Oregon v. Mathiason 492 U.S. 492 Stansbury v. California (513 US 318) Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730