Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice - Research Paper Example

Issue In this case, the United States Supreme Court was faced with a determination on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which it reversed and remanded. The respondent in this case Mr. Knights had been sentenced by a court in California to serve a term in probation for the offence of being in possession and use of drugs, and part of the terms of probation were that he would submit to a search and or arrest at any given time. This would be carried out notwithstanding the absence of a warrant as long as there was a reasonable cause to be searched or arrested. Mr. Knights signed the probation order, which had the directions and a place to acknowledge that he had received a copy of the order, read it and understood the provisions of the order and agreed to abide by the same. The issue that then arose is whether the search of Mr. Knight and anything that he owns pursuant to the conditions set forth in the probation order and supported by reasonable suspicion met and satisfied the positions set in the Fourth Amendment of the United States supreme law. Rule In as much as the provisions of the Fourth Amendment customarily requires a degree of probability for any search or seizure as represented in the term “probable cause”, a lesser standard of probable cause can be applied and meet the threshold of the US Constitution. This is especially so when the court believes that the balance of private interests as well as that of the government are likely to be at stake as held in the authoritative case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (Karagiozis, 2005). This means that whenever the government or private citizens have such an interest they warrant a minor than credible cause standard. If a law enforcement officer has sensible doubt that a person under probation and subject to conditions is engaged in criminal activity, it diminishes the privacy interests, which are deemed reasonable whenever there is an intrusion on his person or property by the law enforcement officer. This means that the search condition is not an unconstitutional condition as the waiver of the rights under the Fourth Amendment only helps the state in the effective administration of the probation system (Del Carmen, 2013). The Californian law also provides that a probation state is void if it has no affiliation to the offence of which the suspect was sentenced, relates to a conduct that is not criminal in nature or forbids conduct that is not rationally connected to criminal activities in the future. Analysis In this case, the state prosecution argued that the search of Mr. Knights and his property met the provisions set out in the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution under the justification of approval by relying on cases such as Zap v. United States, 328 U.S. 624 (1946), and Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973). The implication of the probationary order was therefore that Knights had voluntarily accepted to be searched according to the terms of the probation order by simply signing and accepting it instead of serving a prison term. The US Supreme Court therefore by adopting the approach of examining the totality of the circumstances enlisted in the probationary order rightly held that the search of Knights and his property was reasonable under the provisions of the Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment stresses on reasonableness that can be assessed through a determination of the degree of intrusion into the privacy of an individual as measured against the need by the government to promote its legitimate interests as held in Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 300 (1999) (In Vile and In Hudson, 2013). The status of Knight as a probationer that is subject to a search condition does not enjoy the liberty that every citizen is usually accorded or entitled as shown in the case of Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480 (1972). The court that sentenced Knight to serve probation had determined that it was necessary for the crime committed by him and Knight had voluntarily accepted the conditions in the probation order including the search provision, which would in turn help in the rehabilitation of the offender and protect the society from criminals. The probation order by expressly stating a search condition and Knight having acknowledged being informed of it diminished his reasonable expectation of privacy. In the analysis of the interests of the government, it is assumed that the assumption that the person has been committed to probation means that he is likely to violate the law, as they had previously been involved in a crime or conceal a crime by disposing the incriminating evidence. The state therefore has two concerns with the probationer, that of completing the probation and being integrated back into the community as well as preventing him from engaging in criminal activity as compared to the ordinary members of the society. The Supreme Court therefore held that the Fourth Amendment’s interest in apprehending those who violate the law, protect victims of crimes, and is justified to focus on the probationer more than it does to the ordinary citizens. Under the considerations that have been enumerated above, there is no need of the reasonable suspicion to conduct a search at the house of the probationer. The degree of suspicion of an individual that would warrant to be searched is determined when there is sufficiently high probability that a criminal act is being perpetrated to make an intrusion on the privacy of an individual reasonable as explained in the case of United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418 (1981). Therefore, even though the Fourth Amendment needs the degree of probability as represented in the term “probable cause”, a lesser degree will be deemed to satisfy the provisions of the US Constitution if the balance of the private and government interests render such a standard to be reasonable. The aforementioned interests call for a slighter than probable-effect standard and when an officer has sensible doubt that a person who is under probation and matter to a search situation is involved or likely to engage in criminal action, an intrusion on his privacy interests is significantly and reasonably diminished. The requirement of a warrant for the search on account of reasonable suspicion is also unnecessary on the basis of the above argument ad this is ably explained in the case of Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 330 (2001) as the diminished expectation of privacy justifies the non-requirement of a warranty. From the above analysis, the District Court rightly found that the search was supported by reasonable suspicion and therefore the warrantless search of Knights that was supported y reasonable suspicion and made under a probationary condition was reasonable within the meaning and the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court therefore was right to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals ordered that the entire case be taken back to the lower courts for determination which must be consistent with the argument put forth in its final opinion. Conclusion In this case, the US Supreme Court was faced with the problem of determining whether the searching of a person and his property done under the probation conditions as set out by California laws was constitutional, and whether the Fourth Amendment restricts searches pursuant to the condition especially to the probationary purpose. The Supreme Court in reversing the judgment in the Court of Appeals held that, it was not for it to determine whether the probation condition did away with Knights reasonable expectation of privacy as provided by the Fourth Amendment. By merely signing the probationary order after having read and agreed by its contents, the search of Mr. Knights and his property pursuant to the conditions set forth in the probation order, and reinforced by sensible doubt pleased the positions set in the Fourth Amendment of the United States supreme law. The District Court was therefore right to convict him while the Court of Appeals went contrary to the law in determining the case on the probable-cause standard as compared with the Fourth Amendment and the therefore the US Supreme Court was right in reversing the decision and remanding it for further proceedings in line with its opinion. References Del Carmen, R. V. (2013). Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice. Belmonty, CA : Wadsworth Pub Co. In Vile, J. R., & In Hudson, D. L. (2013). Encyclopedia of the Fourth Amendment. Thousand Oaks, Calif: CQ Press. Karagiozis, M. F. (2005). Forensic investigation handbook: An introduction to the collection, preservation, analysis and presentation of evidence. Springfield: Charles C Thomas Publisher, LTD. Read More