From Arrest to Adjudication - Essay Example

From Arrest to Adjudication Unit The Fourth Amendment of United s constitution s that people have the right to be safe in their houses, effects and papers, as well as against unreasonable searches and seizures. Additionally, there are no warrants to be issued, unless there is a probable cause, as well as supported by an oath, describing the person, place or things to be seized and searched. This essay explores the process by which a search warrant is issued and sought, in regard to Fourth Amendment requirements. It also defines the probable cause and explains the standard by which such a cause is met. Additionally, it also describes and discusses two types of searches where police officers do not require a warrant, explaining the rationale for allowing warrantless searches. Introduction When criminal suspects are arrested by the police, the focus turns from the criminal justice system to the court system. The adjudication process is normally complex. However, the criminals are guaranteed a hearing conducted under the procedure rules in an objective and fair atmosphere. Ideally, the process of judicatory operates in absolute equality and fairness. In ongoing pursuit of criminals, seizure and search are important in providing evidence for prosecution of criminals (Cole & Smith, 2009). Police have the power to seize and search, but the alleged criminals are protected against arbitrary and unreasonable intrusions from the police. Earlier on many searches were conducted without any justification and therefore, the fourth amendment was formed to guard against the police intrusions. The fourth amendment, states that people have the right to be safe in their papers, houses, effects, and persons against unfair seizures and searches. In addition, this right should not be violated and no warrant shall be issued, but with probable cause, only supported by affirmation or oath describing the area, persons and things to be searched and seized. Although law officers are entrusted with the power to make arrests, perform seizures and searches of people’s belonging, conduct investigations, and use of force when in duty, this power should be exercised within law boundaries and enforcement officers should not jeopardize any proof collected for prosecution. In that regard, the overall focus of this essay is to discuss the ongoing process by which a search warrant is issued and sought, emphasizing on the requirements of Fourth Amendments, define the probable cause and the standard by which the probable cause is met. Additionally, it will describe and discuss at least two types of searches that do not require a warrant, providing example and the rationale for allowing warrantless searches and further explain if all searches require the probable cause. Emphasis on searches and warrants places the judgment of a magistrate between the privacy of citizens and policemen. It authorizes the invasion of privacy only upon a case that comprises probable cause, as well as limits the invasion of the specification of the person to be seized, evidence to be sought and place to be searched (Lippman, 2010). When a warrant is issued, its validity is contested in subsequent suppression and if any evidence is found prosecution is brought. In many cases, courts refer the necessity of judicial magistrates or officers to issue warrants. The First Amendment, is not always grasped by officers and not necessarily denying the enforcement of law to support the evidences. The amendment protection requires the interferences to be drawn by a detached and neutral magistrate instead of judged by those officers who engage in competitive enterprises of search for crimes. The police officers will go about obtaining the search warrant when there are any assumptions and sufficient evidence to support the warrant as well as reduce the nullity of the amendment, leaving the homes of people secure only in police officers discretion. However, such cases do not necessarily mean that only an official or judge can issue a warrant, but stands for validity of power of the party that is issuing in order for them to act. Cole and Smith (2009) explain that the magistrate must be detached and neutral as well as capable of determining whether there exists a probable cause for the requested search or arrest. However, the first test cannot be determined if the ensuing party is engaged in lawful activities, and the court has not allowed the individuals issuing the warrant to have independence of salary and tenure guarantee which is characterized by the judges. Therefore, when they pass the second test, the court has already passed the pragmatic to assess if the party possesses the capacity of determining the probable cause. Once the police establish that alleged criminals possess a reasonable probability of privacy to be seized or searched, then the protection of the fourth amendment takes hold, and as a result the question becomes the nature of such protections. Police officers will need no justification to stop anyone in the street and asks him questions. However, the individual has the right to refuse to answer any such questions and go on with their business. The police officers should only search places and people when they have a reasonable suspicion and a probable cause to suspect any criminal activities. Probable cause therefore, means that the officers should possess trustworthy and sufficient facts in believing that crime has been committed. In some cases, the officer will need a reasonable doubt of criminal activities in order to conduct the search. However, reasonable suspicion means that the officers should have adequate knowledge in believing that the criminal activities are going on (Berman & B.P, 2011). This kind of knowledge is less than the probable cause and therefore, reasonable suspicion is used to justify a short frisk or stop traffic at roadside. An officer must also be able to mention some facts which are articulable in order to warrant the interruption. Those items which are suspected may be seized or taken by the officer. Reasonable cause is a probable cause that is used to validate a seizure and search that is warrantless or that arrest which determines if the officer acted on circumstances and facts that are reasonable and trustworthy, as well as he can justify an individual’s crime committed. For example, a subjective standard will be used to determine the extent to which an insurance policy of a car was covered, based on the reasonable belief of the driver that the owner has been granted the use of the vehicle, whether or not such permission exists or not,U.S Supreme Court, United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Rules 41 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (1994), explains that a search warrant is a type of warrant that permits police officers to conduct a search in either a person or a specified place. Without the warrant, Law enforcement officers may not search a place without the owner’s permissions. Additionally, the Fourth Amendment of the constitution in United States restricts the government seizures and searches. People have the right to be secure in their houses, effects, and papers. Therefore, unreasonable seizures and searches shall not be allowed, and most importantly if no warrant is issued, upon a probable cause, supported by either affirmation or oath, describing the person, things or place to be searched. For example, in case Wilson v. Arkansas, 436 U.S.547(1995), the high court allowed the law enforcement officers to search a newspaper that was not involved in any criminal activity but police suspected it having some evidence on some demonstrators who assaulted the officers. However, some searches do not require a warrant. For example, police officers do not require a warrant to show that the places or alleged criminals to be investigated committed any crime. Federal law on seizures and searches as it appears in, Rules 41 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (1994, Title 18, part 11, Chapter 205-18 U.S.C) governs the warrant and criminal procedures. The officers therefore, only need to prove a probable cause that there is evidence in person or place to be searched. Additionally, only judges may grant a search warrant and therefore, to obtain a warrant, police officers should show that there is a probable cause to make the judge believe that the search is justified. Law enforcement officers must support with affidavits, which are sworn speech describing the items to be seized and places to be searched. The judges then consider the totality of the circumstances, as well as restrict how and when they police officers should conduct the search. Another type of search that does not require a warrant is anticipatory search that grants the law enforcement officers to a warrant which only becomes valid after some triggering circumstances occurs. The Supreme Court reserves this type of warrant only for those situations that police have future evidence in a particular place. Normally, a court uses reasonable tests in determining whether a search or a seizure violates the law. For example, a Knock-entry can be unreasonable at the time police officers decide to conduct a search. They must therefore, knock and announce even if they have a search warrant and not force their way in the residence immediately. They should wait for a reasonable time before forcing entry. For example in the case, United States v. Ross 14 U.S.927 (1984), the Supreme Court ordered the university premises of Ross to be searched against seizures and searches. The court argued that there was a probable cause to believe there was evidence of crimes in the location. The rationale for allowing warrantless searches is when there is a reasonable cause to do so. For example, in case Wisconsin v Richard, 520 U.S 358(1997), the court does not allow the Knock-and–announce rule in case of drug cases. A supreme court also allows a no-knock warrant for a situation where the owner of the building can destroy the required evidence by the time police officers knocks and wait for the owner to allow them inside. Such rationales are reasonable, especially in drug related cases and particularly in urban cities. Additionally, police officers do not need a warrant when there is an urgent threat to the public health or safety. For example, if a person is screaming or locked in a room, the law officers can forcibly break the house in order to determine if there is a crime or violence in progress. In reference to cases United States v Watson, 423 U.S.411, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S constitution protected individual from unreasonable searches and seizures at the time of the framing. Although the amendment argues that the search should be reasonable, Wisconsin v Richard, 520 U.S 358(1997), the effort to give content to the term is guided by individuals who framed the amendment. Therefore, an examination of common seizure and search leaves no doubt that the reasonable belief of the seizure or search depends on whether the police officers announces their authority and presence upon entering a premise. Although the law protects the privacy of a person’s house, the Supreme Court allows the break of houses if the individual to be searched refuse to open his house, but before the enforcement officers do so, they should signify the cause of their search, as well as make a request for the individual to open the door. The law requires that the party has to be notified that it is the officer who is, making a request to search his premises and not a trespasser at the same time claiming to be under the authority (Berman & B.P, 2011). Such cases have proved that the common law is embedded in Fourth Amendment law, but we do not hold the principle as an aspect of reasonable inquiries. Individuals who framed the amendment had their reasons to state that police officers should have a probable cause to gain entry, in a person’s residence. However, this does not mean that every admission has to be led by an announcement, the amendment is flexible, meaning that sometimes officers do not need a knock-announce warrant, when there is an urgent threat to the public health or safety (Cole & Smith, 2009). The law is also applied in cases involving felonies, while at the same time the Supreme Court recognizes that under special circumstances the assumption in favor of announcement does not necessarily give way to any considerations. This is because, the Fourth Amendment was justified by the belief that police officers announcing their entry to a certain place will avoid breaking or destruction of houses as well as avoid physical violence among the commoners and police officers. The above explained reasons for conducting warrantless searches are not persuasive in the sense that the Fourth Amendment restricts them as part of the bill. People have the right to be secure against unreasonable seizures and searches, and this right shall not be violated. However, such searches are viewed as an abuse of power. The amendment is against such warrantless cases unless under circumstances for example, during wars which is legal under the law. United States v. Ross 14 U.S.927 (1984), the officers are said to have smelled marijuana as they approached the truck carrying a package. They took the drugs and seized them, but opened the boxes three days later without obtaining a warrant. The court ruled that the police officers had a probable cause to search a vehicle lawfully and conduct a warrantless search if the containers found inside the vehicle that may conceal the objects. This explains why the reasons for conducting warrantless searches are not persuasive. The police opened the boxes three days later after the packages were removed from the truck instead of conducting the search immediately. Berman and B.P (2011) note out that probable cause is the reasonable belief, usually based on facts that can be articulated, and required in order to sue an individual in court, prosecute or sue the person. However, before a person is prosecuted, sued or arrested, the law enforcement officers should possess enough facts that would lead the Supreme Court to believe that the charges or claims are true. The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable seizures or searches, the Supreme Court allows warrantless search even if a probable cause is present. Chimel v. California (1969). Commentators agree that warrantless search played a small part in enforcing the law because of the breadth and the number of exceptions of this requirement. However, exceptions occur when it is not practical to secure a warrant or when there is an explicit or implied consent to conduct the search. Additionally, a probable cause may not be required when circumstances and facts prohibits any reasonable privacy. These exceptions are not limited, but include search incidents such as arrest an individual lawfully to ensure safety, for example, stop and frisk inspections by airport authorities or customs, or searches of belongings and items. The standard of probable cause applies to all searches regardless or the warrant or not, Wilson v. Arkansas, 436 U.S.547 (1995). Conclusion An essential reason of the warrant requirement is to protect the privacy of citizens by assuring individuals to a seizure or a search as well as such intrusions are not accidental or government’s acts, which are arbitrary. The fourth amendment states that the people have the right to be safe in their papers, houses, effects, and persons against unfair seizures and searches. This right should not be violated and no warrant shall be issued, but with probable cause, only supported by affirmation or oath describing the area, persons and things to be searched and seized. However, probable cause only authorizes the invasion of privacy only upon a case that comprises probable cause, as well as limits the invasion of the specification of the person to be seized, evidence to be sought and place to be searched. The fourth amendment takes place once the police have established that alleged criminals have a reasonable probability of their privacy to be seized or searched. The fourth amendment therefore, protects the right of individuals against unreasonable seizures and searches. The essence of such protection is to prohibit law enforcement officers from taking law in their own hands. References Berman.S & B.P (2011), The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System. New York: College Teaching. Cole.G & Smith.C (2009), the American System of Criminal Justice, International Edition. New York: Cengage Learning. Lippmann’s (2010), Criminal Procedure. New York: Cambridge University Press Rules 41 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (1994) London: Diane Publishing Company. Wisconsin v Richard, 520 U.S 358(1997) Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Chimel v. California (1969). Cases retrieved from: Cornell Law Institute http://www.law.cornell.edu/ U.S. Courts http://www.uscourts.gov/about.html Read More