Analysis of the Constitution of the United States of America - Essay Example

Running Head- Search and Seizure Search and Seizure The Constitution of the United s of America strictly prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of items in private dwelling houses. Such search and seizures are in direct contradiction of the provisions of the fourth Amendment of the US constitution. The fourth Amendment provides for ‘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.’(The Constitution of the United States of America 4th Amendment) All arguments and submissions made by the attorney for William for the exclusion of evidence will be founded on the principles set forth in the fourth Amendment. In a leading case, as early as 1914, the US Supreme Court ruled that searches and seizures that encroached upon the protection guaranteed under the 4th Amendment was subject to the exclusionary rule. (Weeks v. United States) Weeks case is demonstrative of the first application of the exclusionary rule. Whether it is applicable in William’s case is a matter of fact. The exclusionary rule as enunciated by Mr. Justice Day provides for protection against unfair searches and seizures. He said that the purpose of the 4th Amendment ‘is to put the courts [232 U.S. 383, 392]   of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, under limitations and restraints…’(Weeks v United States) Moreover, Day continued, the right of the people to remain secure in ‘their persons, house, papers and effects’ were inalienable rights. (Weeks v United States) The greatest challenge for William’s attorney is establishing that the processing of the crime scene and collection of physical evidence from the home amounted to a violation of William’s rights under the provisions of the 4th Amendment. Looking at the landmark case of Mapp v Ohio it was held that any evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment will be excluded from evidence in criminal proceedings in State courts. (Mapp v Ohio) Together with Weeks ruling, the exclusionary rules appears to be straightforward. It can be argued that although the investigating officers had probable cause they failed to comply with the provisions of the fourth amendment by neglecting to obtain a search warrant supported by ‘oath and affirmation’ (The Constitution of the United States of America 4th Amendment) The fourth Amendment right can be waived by consent to search. (Schneckloth v. Bustamonte) However, there is no evidence that Mary Ellis provided the crime scene technicians with consent. In fact she suffered a breakdown of sorts and was transported to a hospital for observation. It is well established law that permitting the police to enter the premises and not objecting to the ensuing search is insufficient to waive the requirements of the 4th Amendment. According to Stewart J a "knowing" and "intelligent" waiver is required. (Schneckloth v Bustamonte). Moreover, Stewart J said that ‘To preserve the fairness of the trial process the Court established an appropriately heavy burden on the Government before waiver could be found.’ (Schneckloth v Bustamonte) It is therefore for the prosecution to prove that Mary Ellis, a senior citizen, who is obviously in an altered state of mind waived her fourth amendment right against unlawful search and seizure, ‘knowingly and intelligently’. The doctrine forbidding fruit from the poisonous tree is applicable in this case and William’s attorney can argue successfully for the exclusion of the physical evidence. The forbidden fruit doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule as set forth in the preceding paragraphs. The extension comes at a high cost to society and this fact is not lost on the courts. However, William’s attorney can argue that the application of the exclusionary rule is necessary to prevent further violations of constitutional rights. The US Supreme Court described the rationale behind the forbidden fruit doctrine. ‘The core rationale consistently advanced by this Court for extending the exclusionary rule to evidence that is the fruit of unlawful police conduct has been that this admittedly drastic and socially costly course is needed to deter police from violations of constitutional and statutory protections.’ (Nix v. Williams) The US Supreme Court went on to say, that ‘on this rationale, the prosecution is not to be put in a better position than it would have been in if no illegality had transpired’. (Nix v Williams) According to the authorities delineated above, William’s attorney has a viable argument for the exclusion of evidence obtained from the crime scene. The US Supreme Court has specifically and consistently held that evidence obtained by illegal means, especially in contravention of the 4th Amendment will not be admitted at the trial of the action. The evidence of the discovery of Clyde Steven’s body is a different matter altogether. This evidence will likely be allowed into evidence at the criminal trial. In Nix v William, Burger C.J. upheld the lower court’s finding that the body would have been discovered despite illegal methods. Burger said that ‘the evidence pertaining to the discovery and condition of the victims body was properly admitted at respondents second trial on the ground that it would ultimately or inevitably have been discovered even if no violation of any constitutional provision had taken place.’ (Nix v Williams) In this case, Mary Ellis telephoned 911 and reported the finding of Clyde Stevens in her closet. The telephone call, although made in a panic, is such that one would expect in the circumstances. She evidently wanted to secure help for Clyde Stevens, or at the very least have him removed from her home by the proper authorities. The fact that the police processed her home and removed physical evidence is another matter entirely and is subject to the application of the 4th Amendment. Evidence obtained by the police officers pursuant to consent to search by the widow of Clyde Stevens will be admissible. That particular consent to search is not tainted by evidence of involuntariness. Mrs. Stevens appears to be lucid in that she recalls specific details of various infractions committed by William. Moreover, Mrs. Stevens specifically permitted the police to conduct a search of her home. Certainly there were legal justifications for the police to conduct a search of the Ellis residence. ‘Probable cause is where known facts and circumstances, of a reasonably trustworthy nature, are sufficient to justify a man of reasonable caution or prudence in the belief that a crime has been or is being committed.’ (Draper v U.S. 1959) The fact that a body was discovered in Mary Ellis’ closet with a knife protruding from his back provides reasonable grounds for the police to suspect that a crime had been committed. The eye-witness discovery, followed closely by the arrival of 911 officers who observed the body constitutes evidence of a trustworthy nature. The facts and circumstances of the body’s condition are ‘sufficient to justify a man of the reasonable caution or prudence in the belief that a crime has been…committed’ within the criteria set out by Draper v U.S. Be that as it may, the police could not circumvent the requirements of the 4th Amendment by conducting a search of the rooms within the Ellis’ townhouse. The right to automatically conduct a warrantless search is only permitted in exceptional circumstances. Those circumstances will exist when the life of another individual is endangered or the suspect is likely to destroy evidence necessary for the protection of national security. (Searches and Seizures) In William’s case there is no evidence that any of the circumstances necessary to permit a warrantless search and seizure exist. The police are merely conducting an investigation and are not in hot pursuit of a suspect. There is no evidence that the life of another is endanger and the fact that William is in another State strongly suggests that there is no imminent danger that he is likely to destroy evidence. As a result of the strict application of the US Supreme Court to the provisions of the 4th Amendment, if I were the officer in charge of the investigation I would have conducted matters differently. To begin with, despite the consent given by Mrs. Stevens I would have insisted that she signed a ‘consent to search’ form. This is crucial to the integrity of the criminal proceedings for the prosecution. A good defense attorney could create reasonable doubt as to whether or not consent was actually given and a witness can often be confused on cross-examination by a savvy defense attorney. In the second place the officer in charge of the investigation would have been well-advised to make an application for a search warrant. All of the ingredients for the requisite probable cause within the meaning of the 4th Amendment exist. There was no great urgency to conduct the search, as mere police presence would have deterred interference with the crime scene. In the circumstances, many justices can be located on Weekends, as well as on holidays for the granting of a search warrant in circumstances where a suspected murder was committed. References Constitution of the United States of America. Available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html Viewed October 2, 2006 Draper v United States 358 US 307 1959 Available at: http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/legoct94.htm Viewed October 2, 2006 Mapp v Ohio 367 US 643 (1961) Available at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=367&page=643 Viewed October 2, 2006 Nix v. Williams, 467 U. S. 431, 442-443 (1984 Available at: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=432011 Viewed October 2, 2006 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 US 218 (1973). Available at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=412&invol=218 Viewed October 2, 2006 Searches and Seizures. Available at: http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/6/objectId/81B70BE7-806D-43EB-8632156E62570E6E/catId/268BB6A8-8884-4677-89869B6AD8A75ADA/104/143/127/FAQ/ Viewed October 2, 2006 Weeks v United States 232 US 383 1914 available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=232&page=383 Viewed October 2, 2006 Read More