The Right of Security Officers to Inspect Lost and Suspected Properties - Essay Example

The trial court established that “Under the circumstances, the suitcase was abandoned. The defendant did not express a possessory interest in the suitcase at any time after he learned its location. Having been abandoned, the defendant had no expectation of privacy in it or its contents” (Tr. At 40-41) (Congress 551).

On March 6, 2009, Mr. Stewart engaged himself in a conditional guilty plea, determined to achieve his right to appeal by suppressing the judgment that was done against him (Doc. At 22) (Congress 551). The defendant was sentenced to 60 months imprisonment, followed up by 3 year period of supervised release, on April 27, 2009. This is an appeal of the federal grand jury’s judgment that was entered on April 29, 2009.  

Summary of Arguments

            This is not the first time a case of this form was appearing before the Court. The court case involving the United States and Arango, 912 F.2d 441 (10th Cir. 1990), ruled that anybody who has the legal right to the ownership of personal property has the legal right to prevent other people from searching for it. Another ruling in a similar case between the United States and Jones, 707 F.2d 1169, (10th Cir. 1983), ruled that in situations such as this of United States Vs Steward, no prior or related appeals are made (Congress 552). This case, therefore presents a question of first order: Whether Mr. Stewart should be allowed to engage in an appeal system, or whether the Law Court should consider this case as one which does not require prior or related appeals.

Discussion

            The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 set that a 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum penalty will be issued to any subject found possessing drugs to distribute depending on the nature and weights of the substances (Congress 539). Stewart was imprisoned for possessing 100 grams of heroin to distribute it. The court had earlier handled such two cases and given rulings that can help in understanding the case between United States Vs Stewart. The defendant is in a legitimate position as an American citizen, to defend his rights to appeal, and to keep away other people from inspecting his property. But this condition is not easy to determine, because the process the defendant went through was such a complicated one that required more time and consideration.

            The trial Court was legally right to deny Mr. Stewart an opportunity to engage in an appeal that was intended to dismiss the charges against him. According to the former judgment, any person who has legal ownership of a property through existing proofs such as documents are the ones who are entitled to request for Apple if their assets are illegally inspected without their consent (Congress 539). It should also be noted that the property that can be protected should not be illegal, property like bags carrying heroin, cocaine, bang, guns, and other illegal property can be inspected by security officers even if the owner denies accepting inspection.

            Mr. Stewart, the defendant, only claimed that the suitcase was his without providing any evidence. This left a question for proving whether the luggage was legitimately his. Because he was the only person who claimed ownership of the property, the security had no otherwise but charges him accountable as the owner of the bag. The Airport security officers can also not be held responsible for illegally searching the suitcase since it was reported as a lost and found property (Congress 552). The defendant has no legal right to seek an appeal to suppress the decree. In the first place, he had no legal documents to approve that he was the lawful owner of the property, and secondly, the content of the bag was illegal and it required legal proceedings. If the defendant was approved to be the legal owner of the suitcase, then the law court was in the right position to sentence him to 5 years imprisonment. The trial court was also legally right to deny him the opportunity to seek an appeal to suppress the ruling (Congress 552).

Conclusion

            Any judicial system has legal processes that are substantial enough to solve crime issues. Americans and other authorized visitors have the right to protect their property from being searched without their consent. The properties that are described under this law should be legal property but not illegal property like drug substances. Security officers have the right to inspect lost and suspected properties even without their owners’ consent. The District Court established that the defendant was in possession of the illegal property, and he, therefore, deserved to be sentenced to imprisonment in accordance with the law. The defendant had no legal right to engage in an appeal to suppress the ruling, because the property was illegal, and the airport security officers also acted within the company’s policy.  For the following reasons, the judgment of the District Court should not be vacated, and this case should not be accepted for resentencing.