The Justification for Warrantless Searches - Essay Example

The Justification for Warrantless Searches Warrantless searches refer to those searches carried out by law enforcers and subsequent seizures without being in possession of warrants (Cole & Smith, 2007). In the United States of America, the Fourth Amendments restricts scenarios where such warrantless searches (Cole, Smith & DeJong, 2012). This paper discusses instances where warrantless searches may be undertaken during automobile searches and during search incident to a lawful arrest. Automobile searches may be undertaken without a warrant if the vehicle’s passenger compartment can be reached by a suspect who has arrested. This may also be justified if there is high probability that evidence may be obtained related to the crime that culminated in the arrest of the suspect. In the USA warrantless automobile searches was first justified in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543 (1925). In this case, the court argued that law enforcers were justified to carry out a warrantless search because they had a cause to believe that the vehicle had contraband items. Warrantless automobile are also justifiable in instances where exigency circumstances exist. For instance, in the above case (Carroll v. United States) the court ruled that the law enforcers were justified to carry out searches without warrant due to existence of exigency circumstances. The court noted that vehicle could easily be moved and evidence that might have been in the vehicle interfered with if a warrant had to be sort first. For a law enforcer to carry out such a warrantless automobile search, he/she must be able to determine the existence of exigent circumstances (Cole & Smith, 2007). Once such circumstances are established, the law enforcer is then required to determine whether to carry out the search or cordon off the vehicle to await a search warrant. In the USA, the law enforcers carrying out warrantless searches are guided by one rule, which requires them to do whatever is reasonably necessary in case of emergence (Cole, Smith & DeJong, 2012). The law that law applies to both the investigating officer and the person being searched in the case of the United States of America is the Fourth Amendments which restricts scenarios where such warrantless searches may be undertaken (Cole & Smith, 2007). Automobile warrantless searches are necessary only in instances where the evidence may be interfered with such as in cases where there exist exigent circumstances. Search incident to a lawful arrest may be undertaken without a warrant only if exigent circumstances exist as provided for in the Fourth Amendment in the USA. Such circumstances may include but not limited to evidence that the person being arrested is trying to flee or to destroy evidence. For instance, in the Kentucky v King, case the court ruled that the law enforcers might enter and carry out a warrantless search if there are reasons to believe that evidence is being destroyed (Cole & Smith, 2007). For a law enforcer to carry out such a warrantless search, he/she must be able to determine the existence of exigent circumstances. Once such circumstances are established the law enforcer is then required to determine whether to carry out the search or cordon off the vehicle to await a search warrant (Cole, Smith & DeJong, 2012). In the USA, the law enforcers and the person being searched are guided by the Fourth Amendments, which restricts scenarios where such warrantless searches may be undertaken. Search incident to a lawful arrest without warrants are necessary only in instances where the evidence may be interfered. This can help in protecting evidence. References Cole, G., & Smith, C. (2007). Criminal Justice in America, 5th Ed. London: Cengage Learning Cole, G., Smith, C., & DeJong, C. (2012). The American System of Criminal Justice, 13th Ed. London: Cengage Learning The National Drug Control Strategy The National Drug Control Strategy is guided by three core principles: stopping drug use before it starts; healing America’s drug users; and disrupting the market (Singer, 2008). This paper discuses the most effective principle and the least effective principle. It also discusses how drug crimes are investigated and prosecuted. The most effective principle is the stoppage of drug use before it starts. This is because it is cost effective and involves everyone in the society (Wyler, 2009). Moreover, it is less complex as opposed to other principles. In addition, the largest number of American population do not use drugs currently and stopping drug use before it starts can help safeguard the American society. The effectiveness of this principle is more promising if it is directed toward the youthful generation that is most susceptible to drug abuse allure. It is also argued that programs aimed at preventing drug use are beneficial to both drug users and non-drug user since they can help to reduce quantities consumed by drug users (Singer, 2008). A study conducted by Cornell University indicate that students involved in school based drug abuse programs are less likely to engage in drug abuse as opposed to those who do not. This principle is put into action through funding from the federal government, which supports prevention programs instituted by schools, community organizations, and law enforcement (Wyler, 2009). Various programs are programs are used to put into place stoppage of drug use before it starts. One such program is the grounding of prevention system at the community level. Another policy requires programs to be undertaken in settings in which young people are found. Another policy that is currently in use is the development and dissemination of information on youth drug use by supporting drug abuse prevention programs on college campuses and preparing reports on health risks of youth drug use (Singer, 2008). Another program aimed at enhancing prevention of drug use involves collaboration between criminal justice agencies and prevention organizations. These programs are effective since they incorporate the whole community and ensure that young people who more vulnerable are mainly involved in the programs. The least effective principle is the disrupting the market which relies mainly on eradication, interdiction and enforcements of domestic law. This is because eradication of narcotic plants is usually temporary since the plants can be replanted. Moreover, studies show that in spite eradication efforts in countries such as Columbia; the number of coca acreage has increased in neighboring countries and remote areas (Wyler, 2009). In addition, the method used to eradicate narcotic plants, areal spraying, has been criticized for destroying legitimate crops. Furthermore, the eradication efforts are curtailed by existence of insurgency groups and drug traffickers, U.S aid package and social and environmental impacts. Interdiction efforts are also hampered by the ever evolving ways that drug traffickers use to transport the drugs (Singer, 2008). The principle of disrupting the market is implemented today through coordination of federal enforcement initiatives by state, local and tribal partners by maximizing federal support for task forces involved in drug law enforcement, improvement of intelligence exchange and sharing of information and comprehensive review of domestic drug threats (Wyler, 2009). It is also being instituted through securing US borders by implementing the Southwest Border strategy on counternarcotics, interdiction of weapons and currency destined to the south, coordination of efforts aimed at securing the Northern border against threats that are drug related and by denying use of ports of entry between ports. This is also being put into place through focusing on specific drug problems by countering domestic production of methamphetamine, and eradication of marijuana cultivation. Collaboration with international partners to disrupt drug trade is another strategy that is being used to enforce this principle. This is being enforced through supporting drug control in major sources of drugs and transit countries and attacking drug trafficking organizations (Singer, 2008). These programs are to some extent effective in reducing the production and trafficking of drugs although their effectiveness depends on other two principles of the National Drug Control Strategy. Drugs are usually concealed in various ways during transportation. This is attained through human couriers, and storing drugs within hidden compartment. Investigators can use various techniques to investigate hidden compartment cases. One such technique is use of undercover agent in selling vehicles equipped with compartment for hiding drugs. The investigators may also research and seize vehicles with a hide. They may also use an offline national Crime information center query. To be able to prosecute, the prosecutor must be able to proof that the perpetrator offered or sold drug paraphernalia, the hidden equipment was aimed at or designed to conceal contraband and that the perpetrator acted knowingly. References Singer, M. (2008). Drugging the Poor: Legal and Illegal Drugs and Social Inequality. London: Waveland Press Wyler, L. (2009). International Drug Control Policy. London: Diane Publishing White-Collar Crime According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation white-collar crime are illegal acts that may involve deceit, concealment or trust violation and which do not involve violence or physical force (Eichenwald, 2005). White-collar crime involves use of computers and may entail traditional criminal activities such as fraud, theft, forgery, mischief and defamation. New age crimes that have evolved from abuse of computers are also called cyber crime and include cyber stalking, web defacement, hacking and web jacking. This paper discuses new age crimes (Leap, 2007). New age crime can be categorized into cybercrimes against government, persons and property. Cybercrime against government are illegal acts perpetrated against the government using computers. An example of this category of new age crime is cyber terrorism (Shover & Hochstetler, 2006). Terrorists have in recent past deployed internet to threaten international governments. These individuals may crack into the website maintained by target military or government. New age crimes against persons are illegal acts perpetrated against individuals by use of computers (Leap, 2007). This category of cyber crime includes crimes such as transmission of child pornography and harassment of any individual by use of a computer through emails or cyber stalking. Transmission of obscene material is the widely acknowledged new age crime (Eichenwald, 2005). This crime threatens growth and development of young generation and has lasting effect on young people. Cyber harassment is another most common cyber crime against person. Harassment can be in the form of racial, sexual, religious or other. Another person related cyber crime is violation of privacy of online users. Cyber stalking is another person related cyber crime. The final category of new age crime is the cyber crime against property. These entail all cyber crimes against property. They entail trespass through cyberspace, vandalism of computer, harmful program transmission and unauthorized ownership of computerized information (Leap, 2007). The gravest cybercrimes in this category are hacking and cracking (Shover & Hochstetler, 2006). Hacking and cracking may result in unauthorized person breaking into precious and confidential information and even tampering with it without the knowledge of the owner. This category of new age crime also entails creation and dissemination of computer software that are harmful and which can cause irreparable damage to the computer. Various techniques are used to investigate the above crimes. They include computer/firewall/intrusion detection system/logs technique, informants technique, data interception and monitoring technique, search warrant technique, interviews technique, digital forensics technique and liaison with internet service provides technique (Eichenwald, 2005). Techniques for investigation of cyber crimes differ from other criminal investigation in that investigation has technology component. They are however similar to other forms of investigations in that they require identification and reviewing of the technical component just ;like other forms of investigations requires reviewing and examining materials contained in a file cabinet in the suspect’s office/home. Investigation of white-collar crime is unique in that it is carried out by computer professionals who are knowledgeable in computer forensics. Knowledge in computer forensics enables investigators to learn more about the suspect system (Leap, 2007). Computer forensics enables the investigator to unravel encrypted information and stenographic information (Shover & Hochstetler, 2006). It is also unique because it usually entails surveillance rather than waiting for the victim to report the offence. The society can help prevent cyber crime by participating in investigation process through provision of material software, hardware and other items to law enforcers that can aid in investigation of cybercrimes. Private firms can also participate in the process by assigning some of their employees to work with investigators in the process of investigation. Moreover, the society can help combat cyber crime by educating children on safe use of computers to avoid cases where they may be bullied online. References Eichenwald, K. (2005). Conspiracy of Fools: A True Story. London: Crown Publishing Group Leap, T. (2007). Dishonest Dollars: The Dynamics of White-Collar Crime. Cornell: Cornell University Press Shover, N., & Hochstetler, A. (2006). Choosing White-Collar Crime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Outline Robbery is a forceful acquisition or attempt to acquire a va;luable property from another individual through use of threats. The robber usually carries away with him/her the property robbed from his/her victim. This paper provides a review of the final paper which is about an investigation of robbery. In the paper, it is noted that a robbery took place on 20th April, 2011. The first officer on the site was Amos Garret. The officer noted that the victim of the robbery was Miss Caro Olive and that she had been robbed a gold watch, and gold chain. The officer noted the features of the property, the suspected assailant and alerted the dispatcher. He then prepared initial report and notified the detective. On receiving the report, the officer opened a case. The investigator then outlined elements that needed to be proved in the case. The investigator then carried out preliminary procedures which were aimed at obtaining information from the victim, the complaint and the suspect in case he was arrested. Following the notification from the dispatcher, two suspects were arrested. The two were Gate Muller and David Han. After interrogating the two suspects and the victim, the investigator reviewed surveillance video obtained from the crime scene. This was followed by a review of criminal background of both the two suspects and the victim. One of the suspects, David Han had a past criminal record while the victim and Gate did not have a criminal past from the records. After gathering this information, the investigator arranged fro identification parade in which the victim identified David Han as her assailant. This informed the investigator to request for the release of Gates and detainment of Han. The video from the crime scene also captured the incident and showed clearly that Han was the key suspect. The investigator then prepared a final report in which he detailed the implicating evidence . the investigator the briefed the prosecutor and handed over the investigation report that enabled the prosecution team to successful argue the case against Han. Han was found guilty and was sentenced five years in prison in accordance to Penal Code sections 211 and 213(b)(2). The reported noted that the process of investigation involved the major criminal unit who were responsible for arresting the suspects. The report further noted that the first officer on the ground was instrumental in the case for capturing all essential information at arrival at the scene. Moreover, the prosecution team was instrumental in utilizing the gathered evidence to argue the case effectively in the court. The crime was found to be unique since it involved a weapon that was used to threaten the victim prior to being robbed her possession. Moreover, the crime was unique since only electronic evidence was available and no human witness was used. The report also talks about a flawless report for the prosecutor. The report notes that a flawless report for the prosecutor needs to be factual, accurate, clear, concise, complete and timely. This paper has reviewed a robbery investigation report. First, the paper has reviewed how the investigation begun with the arrival of the primary officer at the scene, subsequent opening of the case and an outline of the elements that needed to be proved in the case. The paper has further outlined how the suspects were arrested, interrogated, identified and one of them acquitted. The paper moreover, outlined how the suspect was sentenced. The paper further outlined key players in the case and the uniqueness of the case. Investigating Crime Robbery entails a crime of forcibly taking or attempting to take valuable property from another by threatening the victim with intent to instill fear (Becker & Dutelle, 2012). The item taken in robbery is usually taken illegally. It also involves the element of carrying away, in that the robber goes with property he/she robs from the victim. The perpetrator of the act has a sole intent to deprive the victim permanently his or her property through use of threats or force (Jetmore, 2007). Thus, robbery entails deployment of intimidation and violence prior to taking the victim’s property. Robbery also entails personal property rather than real estate or property attached to the land. In this report, I detail an investigation a robbery crime Miss Caro Olive (the complainant) and the Mr. David Han (the suspect). On April 20, 2011, at 5.30 PM, Amos Garret (patrol officer) was dispatched to an armed robbery at Don SW George road. On arrival, George met a young woman named Miss Caro Olive. Miss Caro Olive told officer Amos Garret that she had been robbed by a young white male in his late twenties. She said that the assailant pointed a white revolver at her and demanded for her jewelry. The assailant took from Miss Caro Olive a gold watch, and gold chain. The woman said that the gold watch and gold chain was worthy $600.00. The officer requested Miss Caro Olive to describe the suspect and she told him that the suspect was about six feet – one inch tall. She further said the suspect had a neat trimmed mustache and that the right cheek of the suspect had deep scar. The woman also said that her assailant was wearing a light fade blue jeans and dark blue shirt. The woman informed officer Garret that the incident had occurred about fifteen minutes prior to his arrival. The officer immediately notified the dispatcher to put out a look out for the suspect to all units in the area. The officer then asked the woman on whether there were any witnesses to the incident, to which she answered negative. The officer completed the initial report, I was notified as the detective of the incident, and a copy of the report was forwarded for further follow up. Investigation of a crime especially a robbery requires the investigator to undertake various investigative and management steps (Becker & Dutelle, 2012). When I was notified and received a copy of the initial crime report, I outlined a predication in which I stated that, “A robbery case has been opened on April 20, 2011, at 6.00 PM following a complaint by Miss Caro Olive for having been robbed gold watch and gold chain worthy $600.00 at Don SW George road by unknown white male assailant”. Following this, I outlined the elements that ought to be proved in the case. One such element was that indeed Miss Caro Olive had gold watch and gold chain worthy $600.00, and that she had been robbed. Second element that needed to be proved was that the offender had a white revolver. The third element that needed prove in the case was whether the woman, Miss Caro Olive, was in a position to identify the offender if she saw him. After outlining these elements, I carried out preliminary procedures that were aimed at obtaining information from the victim, the complaint and the suspect in case he was arrested. Meanwhile following Officer Garret’s request to deploy some officers in the surrounding areas of the crime scene two suspects with similar descriptions to those given by the victim were arrested. Both victims were found in possession of firearms both of which were white revolvers. I interrogated the suspects and requested that they be detained at Don police station for further questioning the next day. One of the victims had five hundred dollars while the other had twenty dollars. The suspect with twenty dollars was identified to be Gate Muller while the other was David Han. Since in the initial report the victim said, she had no witness I set out to have a look at the crime scene. At the crime scene, I noted that some surveillance cameras were on the street, which I requested to have copies of stored videos. The next day I met the victim and interviewed her about the crime to which she gave a detailed description of the incident. I asked her if she could identify the suspect if she saw him again to which she answered in the affirmative. I also sort to establish on whether she had documentation to prove ownership of the said watch to which she affirmed. I then interviewed the suspects in custody on whether they are employed or not and whether they had licenses for owning the weapons that were in their possession. I also sort to establish from them what they had done on the previous day including where they had gone. After gathering this information, I reviewed the tapes obtained from the cameras and established that indeed the crime had occurred and the person in the video matched one of the suspects, David Han. Once I had interviewed the victim and the suspects, I obtained and reviewed public records and carried out a criminal background to get information about criminal, the crime and the victim in addition to establishing other parties that might be involved in robbery. From the record I established that David Han was a previously a suspect in theft crime. The other suspect had no past criminal record. The records also had no information indicating that the victim had a past criminal record. Once I had this information, I organized a meeting between the two suspects and the victim. Before I could even ask a question, the victim started shouting pointing a finger at David Han, “It is him! It is him who robbed me my watch!” I had nothing to say but to request for detainment of David Han and release of the other suspect. Armed with this compelling evidence I prepared a final report based on the investigation. I then briefed the prosecuting officers about the findings of the crime and submitted my final report on the investigation. In the report, I noted that the suspect was unemployed, owned illegal firearm, was in possession of five hundred dollars of which he had no clear explanation on how he obtained them, was positively identified by the victim, had a past criminal record and the camera on the street clearly shows him committing the offense. These issues enabled the prosecutor to effectively prove that the suspect had committed the offense. The suspect was convicted for having committed a robbery and was sentenced five years in prison in accordance to Penal Code sections 211 and 213(b) (2). Investigations in this crime involved major crime unit. This was instrumental in the arrest of the two suspects. The officers in the unit were able to investigate and arrest suspects who closely matched the description of the victim. This was helpful in faster investigation and conviction of the suspect. The primary officer at the crime scene was also instrumental in capturing crime scene by use of a camera. This information was useful in obtaining evidence from cameras in the surrounding that captured the suspect assailing the victim. The prosecution team was also instrumental in the case since it was able to effectively use the investigation evidence in establishing incriminating information that led to conviction of the suspect and eventual just sentencing (Orthmann & Hess, 2012). The police management was also of great assistance in sharing information on crimes related to the one under investigation. This information was useful in compiling a final investigation report that was used by the prosecutor to argue the case in court. The crime is unique in that it involved use of weapon to threaten the victim in order to rob her off her gold watch and gold chain (Birzer, 2011). Although the suspect did not shoot the victim, he threatened the victim with the revolver. Although the victim was threatened and robbed, there were no human witnesses at the crime scene. To investigate this, technology was used to ascertain that indeed the victim was threatened by the suspect. The technology in question was surveillance cameras covering the crime scene (Orthmann & Hess, 2012). Moreover, the fact that the victim was found with the revolver, which was described by the victim, was an indication that he was probably involved in the robbery. Furthermore, the crime scene was also unique in that very few people use that road and hence the likelihood of a witness seeing such an act is not probable (Gilbert, 2009). A flawless report for the prosecutor needs to be factual, accurate, clear, concise, complete and timely. This implies that the report only has facts, is free from ambiguity, uses relatively few words, and has all the required information and that is completed as soon as possible. The report also needs to be grammatically correct, legible, and objective. In case of a robbery investigation, the report must provide evidence that property was taken illegally from the victim and that the suspect took away the said property (Orthmann & Hess, 2012). Moreover, the report ought to provide evidence that personal property rather than real estate or something attached to the land was object of robbery. The report should also clearly establish that the said property belongs to the victim and not the accused and that the accused took it with intent to permanently deprive the victim ownership of the property. In addition, the report need to clearly provide evidence that fear, force or threat of force was deployed by the accused in taking the item from the victim. This investigation had to deal with the fact that there were no human witnesses but instead relied on witness provided by surveillance cameras (Orthmann & Hess, 2012). The other evidence that the suspect was in possession of five hundred dollar and no the said gold watch and gold chain could be considered only as circumstantial evidence even though they contributed to successful argument of the case by the prosecutor. This paper outlined investigation of a robbery in which Mr. David Han was accused of robbing Miss Caro Olive a gold watch and gold chain. The investigations established that there were no witnesses at crime scene. The description provided by the victim to the primary officer, Amos Garret, led to the arrest of two suspects, with similar descriptions to those given by the victim were arrested. Both victims were found in possession of firearms both of which were white revolvers. One of the victims had five hundred dollars while the other had twenty dollars. The suspect with twenty dollars was identified to be Gate Muller while the other was David Han. Videos obtained from surveillance cameras near the crime clearly showed that Miss Caro Olive was robbed by David Han a gold watch and gold chain. Moreover, the suspect was found to lack license for the gun he had. Moreover, the accused was identified instantly by the victim when she saw him. This information helped in the compilation of an investigation report, which indicated that David Han had committed a robbery crime. The report and briefing to the prosecution team enabled the prosecutor to successful argue the case against David Han. Consequently, Han was convicted of a murder charge and sentenced to a five-year jail term. The success of the case was attributed to proper planning and report writing in addition to corporation between the principle investigator (I), the major crime unit, the police management and the prosecution team. The case was unique in that it involved a weapon that was used to threaten the victim and the investigation had to rely mainly on technology evidence as provided by surveillance cameras. References Becker, B., & Dutelle, A. (2012). Criminal Investigation, 4th Ed. London: Jones & Bartlett Publishers Birzer, M. (2011). Introduction to Criminal Investigation. London: CRC Press Gilbert, J. (2009). Criminal Investigation, 8th Ed. New York: Prentice Hall Jetmore, L. (2007). Path of the Hunter: Entering and Excelling in the Field of Criminal Investigation. London: Looseleaf Law Publications Orthmann, C., & Hess, K. (2012). Criminal Investigation, 10th Ed. London: Cengage Learning Read More