Individual Freedom and Civil Liberties - Assignment Example

? Individual Freedoms This paper strives to provide an overview of what happens when a society allows search and seizure opportunities to law enforcement without a benefit of doubt of guilt. In almost all cases of search and seizure, there should always be a warrant that outlines what the police are there to look for. Cases that could have received a conviction, based on the actual evidence, instead gets overturned because the proper steps for obtaining the evidence were not followed. In effect, this becomes a waste of time for the officers, the defendants and for the judicial courts as well. Warrants should always be obtained when doing search and seizures. Keywords: Introduction 1500 words In the history of the people of the United States, before it was known as such, the British were a ruling force in the land. In dealings with the British, much as was found in the homeland of Britain, there have been seizures of private property and belongings of the people without benefit of reason. When the Bill of Rights was created, the Fourth Amendment was also created which guaranteed the right of people to be secure in their homes, and that all possessions in their home and about their person, would also be safe , unless due cause could be shown and sworn to by the appropriate person (Franklin, Jefferson, & Madison, 2013). Therefore, such items which are confiscated during a search, and the search of a premise itself, conducted without benefit of a warrant, are not considered permissible in a court of law and during a trial (Coyle, 2013). 1.Enforcement of the Fourth Amendment has been upheld in a number of cases since that time, including Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) and Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), which was guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, said that any statements of self-incrimination made by the defendant, without benefit of counsel being present, would be considered void (Coyle, 2013). Subsequently, the Supreme Court took a step further in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 439 (1966), emphasized that a statement must be read to each person, notifying them of the right to remain silent, so as to not incriminate themselves, and that anything said after that, would then be considered a confession and self-incriminating, valid for use in court as evidence (Coyle, 2013). Justice Bradley stated in the case of Weeks v. U.S., 232 U.S. 383 (1914), that in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), the previous ruling made by Lord Camden in Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell’s State Trials, 102 (1765), a British common law case concerning the liberties of people, declared that the defendants, who committed the trespass on John Entwick, were not guilty of trespassing when the king’s messengers broke into Entwick’s home and proceeded look through everything for four hours. They caused damage to the house and its contents, and also through removing possessions from the home in order to deliver them to Lord Halifax, who had issued that warrant. Yet it was shown by Justice Bradley, within the Weeks case, that on further review, Lord Halifax had no right to issue a warrant and therefore, the complaint by Entwick against Halifax, was sustained, based on English common laws (Findlaw, 2013). 2.Chief Justice John Marshall has stated that the founding fathers, in creating the Constitution, expected the people to observe the fundamental principles of freedom as set forth in the structure. People were to exhibit thoughtfulness and experience in giving meaning to these principles in an ever-changing world and yet, the Constitution must continue forward (Stone & Marshall, 2011). In the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution, these principles were put into place because of past abuses by higher powers in search and seizures of people without regard to their rights as free humans. When a rumor could instigate a search and seizure, then all people were at risk of their liberty and would have to live in fear. Therefore, it was important that courts should act as independent judges without influence or sway of political trends and ‘ill humors’ which the people, themselves, might entertain (Stone & Marshall, 2011). This would be most important when considering issues of race and religious orientation in defendants. 3. The major principle of this is outlined in the fact that defendants are to be considered innocent until proven guilty. The proven part is the essential principle of any case. The guilt of a person must be proven beyond a shadow of doubt. Therefore, the Supreme Court and all other courts must be independent courts of justice so that an exact judicial scrutiny will take place, thus maintaining all our freedoms, even to protecting the people against its own government (Stone & Marshall, 2011). As an example, racial segregation was ended by the Supreme Court and the right to have one vote by one person made into law. Other rights, based on the principles of the Constitution, is that everyone has the right to counsel, put forth that women should not be discriminated against, limited the authority of government to dictate what women can do with their bodies (Roe v. Wade), and to ensure that enemy combatants have due process of law. Accordingly, it can be said that it is no more possible for judges to not enforce the Constitution whenever possible as it is for the President to not defend his nation against enemy invasion (Stone & Marshall, 2011). 4. In the case of Smith v. U.S. (2013), after reviewing the facts, the court declares the following: that in fact, Smith was initially denied full process when his neighbor illegally trespassed on Smith’s property and through breaking and entering, entered Smith’s home while Smith was away. His neighbor, John Doe, should have called the police first and stated his problem and the police could have issued a search warrant for Smith’s home, based on the accusation and provision of proofs that Doe had against his neighbor. Providing a description of the stolen goods to the police would have made the arrest of Smith a valid one, if those described items had been on the warrant, and then been found in the home when the police entered with the warrant. A case of probable cause on why John Doe was certain that Smith had his valuables, could have been enough to obtain the initial search warrant under the probable cause rule, through the police. However, as Doe entered Smith’s home without permission, this is a crime of breaking and entering, and thus, a crime separate to itself. The probable cause evidence was initially obtained in an illegal manner. The incriminating evidence was clearly in sight, but only upon entry into the home. In the case of Smith, it must be proven that Smith stole the items, and did not just borrow them instead. If proven that Smith stole the items, then there will be a prosecution, based on the Exclusion Rule. The presentation of facts must have nothing to do with the police search but must be based on facts, such as videotape from a home or store, from the time of the actual robbery if, indeed, it was one. In recent decades, the Exclusion Rule (Cammack & Thaman, 2013) has come into play on specific occasions where it is ruled that evidence obtained, was crucial to a case and, therefore, an exigent circumstance existed (Williams, 2012). In this case, the Exclusion Rule may be used but only if other evidence can be found to show that Smith was the one who committed theft. Ruling by Supreme Court Justice Tom Law Date: May 31, 2013. 4. The social forces in play in this situation are that John Doe had some probable cause as to why he thought Smith had stolen his property. The reality is he should have contacted the police and also kept observation on his neighbor to make sure the stolen property was not being taken out of the house. The fact that he violated his neighbor’s privacy in committing a crime of breaking and entering, as well as trespassing, means that John Doe now has his own set of problems. How he got that information should have been kept very silent although how he knew where it was would have been a problem in describing that to the police. He, most likely, would have left a set of finger prints behind as well, unless he wore gloves while going into the house. The crimes committed by each defendant do not off-set each other. They are two separate crimes and therefore, must be prosecuted as such. There is no evidence, however, that John Doe was ever read his Miranda Statement and this may negate the fact that he said he entered his neighbor’s house uninvited. This could possibly be grounds for the Exclusion Rule accordingly. 5. In some of the cases that have had impact on the judicial decisions over the years, the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), presents a situation where a search warrant should have been obtained before going into someone’s home when the owner was not there. What this suggests is that the people might feel that it could take just anything, even a rumor set by someone who did not like them, which would cause the police to just come into their homes unannounced. The sanctity of home and privacy would no longer exist for anyone (Findlaw, 2013; Stone & Marshall, 2011). In the case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the police suspected residents of a house as potential bombers, or being connected to a bombing, and they asked the resident who answered if they could come in and she said no. After a few hours, and with more police on the scene, the police went back up to the door and when there was no answer to their knocks, they forcibly opened the door (Justia, n.d.). Miss Mapp was arrested on the scene and the premises searched after presenting a ‘search warrant.’ In the search, the police removed various items not related to any bombing but items containing ‘lewd and lascivious books and pictures’ were removed and later presented at trial. Miss Mapp was convicted on those items but the items in question where not what they were looking for when the police entered the house. The Ohio Supreme Court, felt that the conviction should be overturned because there was no search warrant because the methods to obtain the items in question, were offensive to a sense of justice. Again, as in the previous case, no warrants were provided, thus presenting the police as invasive of people’s homes and personal property, something for which the Constitution provides against (Justia, n.d.). Conclusion The main aspect that can be taken away from this is that when there is any sense of doubt regarding obtaining evidence from a potential crime scene, a warrant should be obtained. There are a few instances where searches and seizures of property could be made, but for the most part, warrants should be obtained. To have the police operate at will in searching homes, people and property in homes, gives rise to the fact that police may have too much power to exercise over the people and people will, consequently, live in fear of their police. This should not happen for then we are no longer a free society. Resources Cammack, M.E., & Thaman, S.C. (ed.). (2013). Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law (Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice). New York, NY: Springer Publishers. Coyle, M. (2013). The Roberts Court: The Struggle for the Constitution. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Findlaw. (2013). Weeks v. U.S., 232 U.S. 383 (1914). Findlaw for Legal Professionals Online. Retrieved from Franklin, B., Jefferson, T., & Madison, J. (2013). Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights and Constitutional Amendments. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Kindle. Justia. (n.d.). Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Justia.com US Supreme Court Center Online. Retrieved from Stone, B., & Marshall, W. (2011). The Framers’ Constitution. Democracy. A Journal of Ideas. Web. Retrieved from < http://www.democracyjournal.org/21/the-framers-constitution.php?page=all> Williams, D.R. (2012). Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978). Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties Online. Read More