How does the courts interpretation of due process affect police practices related to search, arrest and interrogation - Essay Example

? s US Criminal Justice How does the court’s interpretation of due process affect police practices related to search, arrest and interrogation?  Court plays an integral role in criminal trials and paving way for the course of justice, however, a court’s interpretation is not only restricted till punishing the perpetrator of the delinquent act but also pays an important in other facets of the trial. These facets involve police practices such as issuing search and arrest warrants, and even the process interrogation is contingent upon the interpretations made during the proceedings. (Scheb, 2008, P.p 10-15) It should be further noted that by initiating the process of prosecution the court has undertaken their responsibility to punish the criminal on behalf of the entire society. There are basic procedural steps that follow respective searches, seizures, interrogation and arrests. Law enforcement agencies are directly under court orders. It vastly depends on the circumstance under which complaint is filed and the defendant is being tried. (Scheb, 2008, P.p 10-15) It is the truth-finding process; a search warrant may be issued in order to gather evidence and if the evidences produced in the court may cause the legal professionals to assume that a further search can help search out more incriminating evidences or something that can prove the defendant’s innocence then in such a circumstance a search warrant may be issued. Seizures are the result of “Reasonable suspicion” that is the high probability that the property in question, may be altered that can distort or destroy a significant piece of evidence. Analogous to the facets of the US criminal justice system discussed above, arrests are made following a “Grand Jury Indictment” and is only performed when evidence point towards the fact that a crime has been committed and there is ample reason to believe that a crime has been committed. Basically, it is because of the jurisdiction that is produced during the trial which is responsible for the law enforcement activities and it is their interpretation that affects these the most. It is fundamental step in determining guilt or innocence of the defendant. (Scheb, 2008, P.p 10-15) 2. Why do state courts have to follow the same due process rights as the federal courts regarding search and seizure rights?  Courtroom proceedings are initiated by the law being broken and then it is followed by the process of trying the accused, analyzing the evidences and then eventually handing out the sentence accordingly. The criminal justice system in the United States of America is characterized by an absence of a single criminal or civil court. Instead the American judicial system is fragmented into the federal or national judicial system and then each American state or territory is governed by their set of rules and regulations. (Emmanuel, 2009, P.p 5-6) Courts that function on a state and federal level may operate as separate entities but they have countless similarities. The constitutional doctrines that is used to govern the entire nation is also used as the foundation of drafting out a state constitution hence, there is immense amount of correspondence in the way they function. As a matter of fact the framework, upon which both of these entities function, is largely the same and when it comes to issuing search, arrest and seizure warrants both courts follow the same due process. (Weiss, 2003) The only difference is in the types of crimes that are tried by each of the legal entities and the way they are tried; for instance federal courts hears cases pertaining to offences that affect the country as a whole whereas, state courts hear offences that are slightly lower in gravity than the ones being handled in federal levels. Therefore, for the most part of the trial process the same procedure is followed. That is relevant interpretation of the trial by the court causes magistrates to issue search and seizure warrants. No matter how different the levels are upon which a state court but these procedures remain the same. (Weiss, 2003) 3. Under what conditions can the police conduct a lawful search? According to the fourth amendment in the United States constitution is an integral component of the ‘Bill of rights’ that protects against searches and seizures that are deemed unreasonable and without probable cause. The fourth amendment dictates that all police officers must possess an arrest warrant and a probable reason to conduct search, arrest and seizure of property. (Bloom, 2003, 45-46) The amendment was drafted in response to the experience of the American people when they were under the colonial rule of the British. Magistrates issued random search warrants and there were no form of regulation in order to protect the people and their privacy; every individual was subjected to searches without any regard to the person, place or time of the search. And therefore, every citizen is protected by the fourth amendment in the constitution. At first the fourth amendment was only applied to federal court hearings but via the fourteenth amendment the right was granted to all American citizens. (Bloom, 2003, P.p 63-64) According to the fourth amendment the only lawful way for police to conduct a search is to first obtain a warrant issued by either the federal or state court that outlines a probable reason for the search. This is a federal rule for conducting a criminal procedure, however according to the clauses released by the Supreme Court of the United States of America; state courts are given the latitude of providing greater amount of security and protection against searches and seizures. This is one of the fundamental differences between the state and federal courts that the degree of protection provided by state courts is greater than the federal court. (Bloom, 2003, P.p 91-94) 4. When can the police conduct a lawful search without a search warrant?  The fourth amendment clearly dictates that a lawful search requires the law enforcement official to possess a search warrant. A search warrant is only issued in the event if there is a probable reason to conduct the search and the warrant are only issued by a magistrate who is detached and not directly involved in the investigation process. However, law enforcers may violate this right granted by the fourth amendment which is only done under special circumstances; this is known as a warrant less search. (Bloom, 2003, P.p 101-106) These exceptions to the fourth amendment only occur in the following circumstances, when there is a valid reason to believe that an individual’s activities may pose serious threat to the society, in that case there can be a warrant less search. If the individual in question has given his or her consent even then the search can be conducted without a warrant. If the individual has been apprehended after a ‘hot pursuit’ or there is evanescent evidence against the individual then the search can also be conducted. Automobile searches are conducted without the issuance of a warrant and in those circumstances where there is a stop-and-frisk situation, where there is ample reason to suspect a person then a lawful search can be conducted. (Bloom, 2003, P.p 101-106) There have been countless arguments and the evidence gathered through these methods is often deemed as unconstitutional. However, if the data gathered is actually incriminating the individual in question then the ‘Exclusionary rule’ was coined to be applied to evidences collected through unauthorized searches. With the passage of time various exceptions to the warrant requirement are surfacing that largely depends on how the term ‘Reasonableness’ is defined by the case, in order to expedite the investigation process. (Bloom, 2003, P.p 101-106, 124) 5. What are the requirements for a confession to be admissible as evidence in a trial?  Trying an individual is a tricky process; however the obtainment of a confession is even trickier than the process of investigation and incriminating the individual in question because they are several implications involved in the admissibility of a confession as evidence in a trial. In most countries there are complex laws pertaining to confessions f criminals, however in the United States of America the laws are clear and the following substance will analyze this greater detail. (Inbau. 2004. P.p 385-387) In the United States a voluntary confession is accepted, but there should be ample investigation in order to make sure that the confession was not obtained via duress. After ruling police misconduct out and making sure that individual was not coerced in to making the confession. The second is that the individual made the confession when he was in a rational state of mind, in order to rule out the possibility that the individual suffers from a mental disorder that impairs his or her sense of judgment. To make the confession more admissible the circumstances should be viewed in totality and there must be the presence ample amount of evidence so there is no wrongful conviction of the individual. (Inbau. 2004. P.p 385-387) Furthermore, the McNabb-Mallory Rule is also applied to determine the admissibility of a confession and according to this rule, a confession obtained during federal interrogation and failure to produce the defendant in court promptly after arrest can result in the confession becoming inadmissible. The laws are clear and draw a clear line between the admissibility and the inadmissibility of the defendant’s confession. (Inbau. 2004. P.p 523-525) 6. Under what conditions can the police arrest a person?  Arrest refers to the deprivation of an individual with basic civil liberty prior to an investigation against the individual to determine his or her guilt in relation to crime or misdemeanor. Arrests are also made in order to prevent an individual from doing harm to others or harm to oneself. According to the universal human rights declaration, n human can be subjected to arbitrary arrests, detention r exile. Similarly, the United States criminal justice system gives law enforcement the liberty to handcuff and detain an individual, if there is ample amount of evidence that raises suspicion against the individual. There are typically two types of arrests that are made, one is a warranted one that is the arrest is made following the issuance of a warrant by a magistrate. (Bloom, 2003, P.p 55-59) A warrant less arrest is usually made, if the individual in question is under a lot of suspicion. There are also non-criminal arrests that are made when an individual is held for breaching of the court laws or rule that is contempt of court. After the arrest the individual is held in the police station, where the relevant investigation and interrogation takes place. It is a practice by American law enforcers to read out the Miranda warning to individuals after being arrested in order to tell them of the rights they possess. (Bloom, 2003, P.p 55-59) Minuteman Leader Shawna Forde – Source: CNN, 2011 (web): http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/02/22/arizona.double.killing/index.html “Jury decides on death penalty for woman who headed vigilante squad” Recently, in a gruesome incident ex-beautician Shawna Forde was charged with two counts of murder for shooting a Latino man and his 9 year old daughter and then a murder attempt on the child’s mother. Her criminal offences also included burglary and leading an anti-illegal immigrant hit squad. Forde was arrested on the 14th February, 2011 and it was followed by an extensive investigation in to the matter. The vigilante attacks were reported in May 2009 and subsequent evidences found during the investigation implicates Shawna Forde in this macabre string of crimes. There are testimonies from her accomplices; people who served in her hit squad have testified that Forde was the ring leader and was at the forefront of all the activities that were undertaken by the squad. Being an anti-illegal immigrant activist, Forde was charged with numerous counts of hate crime and have reportedly admitted during the interrogation session that she wants to establish a “better America” and most of their operations were largely concentrated on the Arizona-Mexico border. Her aforementioned comment can be taken as an indicator that Forde actually showed no remorse and her actions were racially motivated. Furthermore, Forde’s lawyer claimed that her pertains were particularly directed towards illegal immigrants in America but this argument was ruled out because both of her victims were in fact legal residents in the United States of America. Following the investigations and Forde’s conviction all her accomplices came forward that implicated Forde and all the members of her hit squad. Furthermore, the description f the attacker given out by the child’s mother upon whom Forde and her accomplices attempted murder, matches and further diminishes any chance that she can escape the repercussions of her actions. In recent news, Forde is now being considered for the death penalty, which is the harshest form of punishment for murder. The jurors and the judge voted for the death penalty while Forde showed no emotion as the verdict was read out. Considering all aspects of the case, the crime was most certainly committed. Though, Forde never made an admissible confession but her responses to the official’s questions and her apparent unremorseful behavior did not help her case. As stated earlier the searches and arrest of her squad members clearly state that it was Shawna Forde who murdered the man and his child in cold-blood. Even the eye-witness testimony of the woman is taken as a credible source to implicate Shawna. According to the widely accepted definition of crime, Shawna and her squad members were actively involved in activities that severely hampered the tranquility and accord in the society. The final fuse that fired the explosive was when they murdered the Latino man and his child, however their plans did not end with this incident but in fact they were systematically working to spread hate and oppress immigrants in general. Works Cited Bloom, Robert. Searches, seizures and warrants: A reference guide to the United States constitution. ABC-CLIO. 2003: P.p 45-46, 55-59, 63-64, 91-94, 101-106, 124 Emmanuel, Steven L. Criminal Procedure. Aspen Publishers Online. 2009: P.p 5-6 Inbau, Fred E. Criminal Interrogation and Confessions. Jones & Bartlett Learning. 2004: P.p 385-387, 523-525 Scheb, John M. Criminal Procedure. Cengage Learning. 2008: P.p 10-15 Weiss, Steven A. Discovery in Federal and State Courts in Illinois. Schopf and Weiss LLP. 2003. “Jury decides on death penalty for woman who headed vigilante squad”. The CNN Wire Staff. (Web). 2011: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/02/22/arizona.double.killing/index.html Read More