Two-Pronged Agiuilar-Spinelli Test - Assignment Example

Name Course Lecturer Date Question 1 In Aquilar v. Texas U.S 108 (1964), a two pronged test was developed to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to issues a warrant of arrest. In the case, the supreme court asserted that a warrant of arrest could only be issued, if the police officer seeking the warrant can: 1. Provide reasons that support the conclusions that the informant is credible or reliable; 2. Provide reasonable underlying circumstances relied by the person providing the information as grounds for arrest. The arresting officer may have a hard time proving the first part of the two pronged test. The first part of the test requires the arresting officer to prove that both Deborah Cleveland and Kim Stickel are creditable and reliable informants. In this case, the officer would only have to show the two women were of sane mind and were walking down Maple Avenue at the time they observed the man running from the Porch of No. 3 Maple avenue. The man’s closeness to the women as he walked past them on the well lit street may also increase the credibility of the evidence provided by the two women. The two women reported that the suspicious woman was three feet from them as they met him on the street. The arresting officer will also have to prove that there are reasonable underlying circumstances relied upon by the informant to believe a crime was being committed or is in the process of being committed. In Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969), it was asserted that the reasons for the informant to believe that a crime was being committed must be provided. In this case, the two women have sufficient reasons to believe that the man in they saw running off the porch of No.3 Maple Avenue had committed a crime. First, the strange man’s presence on the porch No.3 Maple Avenue at Midnight is very suspicious. Secondly, the fact the man run-off the porch is also suspicious as it shows that he was running from something or was avoiding being detected. Thirdly, the explosion and the fire that later occurred on No.3 Maple Avenue suggest that the man seen earlier running from the porch of the house may be an arsonist. Finally, the man’s second sighting on the porch of No.3 Maple Avenue may prove the decisive factor as he was seen walking off the Porch of No.3 Maple Avenue shortly after the fire had occurred. In this case, the officer can provide sufficient information to prove probable cause for the arrest of the man. In the Maple Avenue case, probable cause is proved by the person’s presence on the Porch of No.3 Maple Avenue at around midnight. Secondly, his act of running of the porch as if escaping from a crime scene also supports the application for a warrant. Finally, the fact that the man was seen on the porch of No.3 Maple Avenue for a second time just after a fire had occurred suggest a crime was committed. This information was provided to the officer seeking a warrant and is sufficient to satisfy the two-pronged Aquilar/Spinelli test. Question 2 Illinois v. Gates 462 U.S 213 called for the abandonment of the two pronged Aquillara/Spinelli approach to determining whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. The case came up with the Illinois Gates test that asserted that a determination of whether a warrant of arrest should be issued is dependent on the totality of circumstances in the particular case. According to the Supreme Court in Illinois v. Gates, it is the task of the magistrate to make a common sense determination based on the totality of circumstances presented in the affidavit. The circumstances must include the “veracity” and “basis for knowledge” for the individuals supplying the information. If the information provided suggest a fair probability that a crime or evidence of a crime may be found, then the magistrate may grant the application for a warrant of arrest. In the Maple Avenue fire case, the arresting officer can easily prove the “veracity and basis of knowledge” of Deborah Cleveland and Kim Stickel. Both informants were walking near No.3 Maple Avenue when the events that suggest the man was a suspected arsonist occurred. This fact, would be enough to prove the “veracity and basis of knowledge” of the informants to the magistrate. However, the arresting officer would also have to provide other underlying circumstance for a finding of sufficient grounds for the arrest warrant to be made. In this case, the underlying circumstances would include the information provided by the informants to the police. First, the informants spotted the suspicious man running from the Porch of No. 3 Maple Avenue. Secondly, the man run towards the two informant and was only three feet away as he met them on thewell lit street. Therefore, the informants were able to provide an accurate description of the suspicious man. Thirdly, the informants also spotted the man around No. 3 Maple Avenue after the fire had occurred. The court, in Illinois v. Gates noted that the requirement for sufficiency of information needed for an arrest warrant is not a high as the requirement at trial. The court noted that it was enough for the informants to provide information that arouses suspicion of the suspects’ actions at the time of the crime. In the case, the information provided by the informants is sufficient to arouse suspicion. The information provided puts the suspicious man at the scene of the crime minutes before the fire started. In addition, the information establishes that the suspect was fleeing from the crime scene some time before the fire started. Finally, the informants reported that the suspect was at the crime scene moments after the fire had started. It is clear that the Justice considered this information carefully before issuing the warrant for arrest and was satisfied of its sufficiency. I would concur with the justice that the information was sufficient basis for an arrest warrant under the Illinois v. Gates test. Question 3 The two-pronged Agiuilar-Spinelli test has always proved more difficult to satisfy for prosecution teams. Under, the test the prosecution is forced to provide facts that support the application for the arrest warrant. In addition, the prosecution has to provide information that proves that the informant is credible and reliable. If the prosecution cannot prove that the informants were reliable and credible, the two-pronged test is a great advantage for the defense as they can argue strongly that arrest warrants weren’t validly obtained. Many scholars have argued that the Aguilar-Spinelli test is unnecessarily technical and rigid and affects the effort of law enforcement in fighting crime. The defense would have a higher chance of success if the Aguilar-Spinelli test is applied as the test involves two prongs that have to be proved independently. The two independent prongs provide two opportunities for the defense to show that there were no sufficient grounds for issuing a warrant of arrest. However, the first prong in the Maple Avenue arson case is easy to prove for the defense. According to (), it is very easy for the “basis of knowledge” prong to be proved, if the information provided to the officer applying for arrest was obtained through observation. In this case, the information is provided from observation of the suspect running from the porch of the crime scene and later at the crime scene. The second prong would be harder for the prosecution to prove as the credibility or reliability of witnesses is a subjective matter. According to Woollcott, the veracity of witnesses can be primarily proved, if the informant had previously provided accurate information to the police (316). It is not clear both informants had not provided information to the police on any crime, and thus other factors would have to be considered in determining their veracity. However, the evidence corroborated by both witnesses suggests that they are credible informants. In contrast, theIllinois v. Gates test comes with a less stringent standard for establishing probable cause or obtaining a warrant. The court in Gates, rejected the Aguilar-Spinelli two-pronged test that had been previously used in determining whether a warrant of arrest had been validly issued. According to the majority in Gates, probable cause should be determined after a consideration of the totality of circumstances in the case. By considering the totality of circumstances the justice is able to establish substantial basis for approving a request for a warrant of arrest. Under, the Illinois v. Gates approach, basis of knowledge and veracity are not independent prongs of the same test. Instead, the approach treats the two prongs as useful interrelated factors that help in the determination of probable cause. The Illinois v. Gates test makes it easier for prosecution to prove there were sufficient ground for the issuance of an arrest warrant. In case if the Illinois v. Gates test is used, the prosecution does not have to rigorously prove the credibility of the informants whose information is used as the basis for application a search and arrest warrant. The Illinois V. Gates test have been criticized for expanding the opportunity for law enforcement to use less than credible information as the basis for arrest warrants. In this case, the prosecution will not be held down by the requirement that the two informants be reliable and credible witnesses. Question 4 As seen in Katz v. United States, 389U.S. 347, the privacy of an individual is protected in places where a person has reasonable expectations of privacy such as his residence or a hotel room (Welsh and Tomkovicz, 25). Later, the privacy expectations set out in Katz v. United States were divided into Subjective expectation of privacy and objective expectation of privacy. Under, the subjective expectations of privacy, the privacy of an individual are protected in places where he has reasonable expectations of privacy according to his own opinion. On the other hand, objective expectations of privacy are concerned with expectations of privacy that everybody in society recognizes. Objective expectations of privacy extend to public restrooms, a person’s residence and a phone booth. Christopher Sterling York had the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy in his apartment building. According to Justice Harlan, in Katz v. United States, a person has an expectation privacy that is protected by the fourth amendment in physically enclosed places such as a telephone booth or a home. Any physical intrusion in the absence of a search warrant into these constitutionally protected places by government authorities is considered a violation of the individual’s fourth amendment’s rights. In Katz v. United States, Justice Harlan created the common test used to test whether an individual has reasonable expectations of privacy in given circumstances. The test has two prongs; If (1) if the individual can show actual expectations of privacy; and (2) whether the society recognizes this expectation of privacy (objective). According to Justice Harlan such factors as shutting the door after entering a telephone booth impact the determination of reasonable expectations of privacy. However, the reasonable expectations of privacy in fire damaged apartments are constructed differently from the expectations set out in Katz v. United States. In Michigan vs Tyler, a person can only have privacy expectations if there are legitimate privacy interests in the fire damaged apartment worth Fourth Amendment protection. In Tyler v. Michigan, Privacy expectations may remain in fire damaged homes or workplaces if people continue living and working in them. According to Tyler, privacy expectation vary according to amount of fire damage, continued use of apartment and the effort of the owner to secure the damaged apartments from intruders. The damage to York’s house was so extensive that no reasonable privacy expectation remained in the property. According to Nine, if no reasonable privacy expectations remain in the fire damaged apartment, then the fourth amendment’s requirement do not apply (33). However, it must be noted, that York’s expectation of privacy could not have been overlooked if the house was not completely damaged by the fire. In addition, the purpose or the kind of officer conducting the search does not affect York’s fourth amendment protection or expectations of privacy. Furthermore, the reason for the search does not affect York’s expectation of privacy. Regardless of whether the search was intended to look for cause of fire, evidence of arson or any other, a search warrant is needed to enter private property where some privacy concerns remain. Question 5 Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1979) and Michigan v. Clifford 464 U.S. 287 (1984) set out the requirements for carrying out valid searches in fire damaged apartments. In Michigan v. Tyler held that a subsequent entry into a fire damaged apartment required a search warrant unless the premises have been abandoned or consent has been obtained from the owner of the premises. According to the court in Tyler, all entries into private property without consent or valid entry warrants are considered illegal. Any evidence obtained pursuant to illegal searches is inadmissible in court in a case of arson. According to Tyler, officials intending to carry out a search in fire damaged premises must obtain a warrant. The process of obtaining a warrant for any purposes must prove probable cause which is dependent on intrusiveness or object of the search. In Tyler, no warrant was needed for the first entry into the building as the exigent circumsance of a burning building allowed the fire fighters to enter the building. Similarly, the Deputy fire marshal did not need a search warrant to enter a building that was completely damaged by a fire. In Tyler, the warrantless searches were ruled to be in violation of the fourth and fourteenth amendment as there was no evidence to provide a factual conclusion that Tyler had abandoned the property. In contrast, all that remained in the place of York’s apartment were ash and timbers. The purpose of the fourth amendment is to protect individual’s privacy and security against arbitrary invasion by government officials. However, in the case of York, there was no privacy or security concerns to protect as his house had been reduced to ash and cinders. Michigan vs Clifford focuses on the privacy expectation of the owners of fire-damaged homes. According to Clifford, warrants must be obtained for searches inside fire damaged homes where some privacy expectations remain. However, in York’s case, his apartment was completely damaged and there were no reasonable expectations of privacy. Therefore, the evidence gathered in the earlier search by the deputy fire Marshall is admissible in the arson case against York. If a warrant was necessary in the case, all evidence collected would have been inadmissible. The Deputy Fire Marshall would have needed a warrant obtained by showing an fire on unknown origin had occurred in York’s house. However, any criminal evidence like the traces of gasoline in the bathroom could have been used under the “plain view’ doctrine. In contrast, a search for evidence of criminal activity require a criminal search warrant which can only be granted after showing probable cause. The evidence obtained in the first search by deputy Fire Marshal can be used as evidence to establish probable cause needed to obtain the criminal search warrant. According to Campagnolo, the standards for criminal searches are higher that standards for searches meant to find the cause of a fire (601). In some circumstances, a search for criminal evidence may require a search warrant while a warrantless search for cause of fire suffices in the same case. In this case, both searches were sufficient as the first warrantless search was justified by the extensive damage to York’s apartment. The second search was also sufficient as probable cause could be shown as a consequence of evidence of the presence of gasoline gathered in the first case. Works Cited Aquilar v. Texas U.S 108 (1964) Campagnolo, Theodore. "Fourth Amendment at Fire Scenes, The."Ariz. L. Rev. 41 (1999): 601. Hine, Gregg, A. "Fire Scene Investigation: An Introduction." Analysis and Interpretation of Fire Scene Evidence (2016): 33. Katz v. United States, 389U.S. 347 Michigan v. Clifford 464 U.S. 287 (1984) Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1979) Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969) White, Welsh S., and James J. Tomkovicz. Criminal procedure: constitutional constraints upon investigation and proof. Lexis Pub, 2001. Woollcott, Alexnader P. "Abandonment of the Two-Pronged Aguilar-Spinelli Test Illinois v. Gates." Cornell L. Rev. 70 (1984): 316. Read More