James Smith - Research Paper Example

It is in this context that although Mr. Smith’s conviction was upheld or proven as a burglary in the state as well as federal courts, arguments remains unconcluded as to whether it was justified for police to arrest Mr. Smith in the absence of a proper warrant. Specific Examples in the Language of Prior Decisions The constitutional justification behind the application of a warrant is that it attempts to protect the right of any individual to be secured in their property. In the language of the constitution, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Legal Information Institute, n.d.).

Even in the prior decisions, the language of the court in judgment had been quite specific in addressing the significance of warrant under circumstances when officers deem it to be necessary for the obtainment of any evidences. For instance, followed by the judgments of the cases such as Florida v. Bostick (501 U. S. 429) and Brower v. County of Inyo (489 U. S. 593), the language of the decision in the case Brendlin v. . Hence, in the language of the prior decisions, “There is no seizure without that person’s actual submission” as unambiguously mentioned in the cases of California v. Hodari D. (499 U. S. 621), Brigham City v.

Stuart (No. 05-502), Georgia v. Randolph (No. 04-1067), Hudson v. Michigan (547 U.S. 586) and United States v. Grubbs (No. 04-1414) (GPO, 1992; Legal Information Institute, n.d.). Arguments used by framers of the Constitution while debating the language of the document When amending the Constitution, the framers have been arguing on the actual purpose of the provisions in respect of using a proper warrant when conducting a search or a seizure or both. For instance, arguments have been based on the restriction imposed by the law executors when felt the necessity to seize or search a person or his property as per their investigation.

Certain exemptions have been allowed in the constitution where the suspect’s agreement to search his property or conduct a seizer is allowed as a lawful and righteous procedure in the absence of a proper warrant [Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006)]. Similarly, law enforcers can act lawfully in the absence of a proper warrant where there is a ‘reasonable suspicion’ based on rational justification rather than guesses (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). Thus, as the search and seizer of Mr.

Smith and his property was based on his neighbor’s guess, such as act cannot be deemed as a reasonable suspicion. Nor did Mr. Smith give his agreement to the search and seizer owing to which the Constitution might depict sympathy towards the defendant (i.e. Mr. Smith). Philosophical underpinning that might influence the court’s ruling The US Constitution in its Fourth Amendment also holds particular philosophical