American Constitution Law 2 J - Essay Example

American Constitutional Law Name of University 25 Nov 2014 How the arrest in Terry v. Ohio in Action could have been lawfully made? Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of people’s “persons, houses, papers, and effects” without a warrant that a police cannot obtain without a warrant followed by his oath or affirmation, and especially with a description of the place the police wants to search and persons or things , the police wants to seize.

Thus, the Fourth Amendment was made in keeping with the principle that a mans house is his castle, and he should be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the Government. Thus, "the Fourth Amendment is not a guarantee against all searches and seizure, but only against unreasonable" ones. Reasonableness of a search depends on the balancing of the interests of individuals and public safety. In Terry v Ohio (1868), the police officer stopped and frisked three suspicious persons after watching them for some time moving around at a place suspiciously.

The police did not have a warrant. In the search, they could see two revolvers from the persons of the suspicious people. It was the case of the defendant Terry that the evidence was not admissible as it was obtained from a warrantless search mandated by the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the warrantless search was valid since there was a reasonable suspicion aroused by the conduct of the persons concerned on a street (Mason & Stephenson, 2012). Search and arrest warrant governed by the Fourth Amendment should be backed by a probable cause that can include hearsay evidence, reliable witness report, and the officer’s own logic and experience.

Hence, unless there is a probable cause, court will not issue a warrant to search or arrest a suspect. For search warrant to be issued, the court must be satisfied that the officer’s description in the warrant application about the items connected to the crime he is investigating with the justification of the belief about their existence and place at which the items could be found. In respect of an arrest warrant, the warrant application should state and provide sufficient evidence and logic to substantiate the suspects involvement in a particular crime under investigation.

Further, there must be provided very specific information on a particular target sought to be arrested or searched. Hence, a random or generalized arrests or searches are not permissible under the Fourth Amendment (Mason & Stephenson, 2012). Therefore, a search warrant should have the full address, specific room or place at the given address, with the objects and papers and information to be searched itemized therein along with the statement of their probable connection to the crime. Similarly, an arrest warrant must contain clear and complete identity of the person to be arrested along with a statement on how a person is connected to the crime.

And the last but not the least, the judge issuing the warrant must be neutral without any connection whatsoever to the case or participants in the crime (Mason & Stephenson, 2012). In the given scenario, the detectives did not obtain search and arrest warrants. The Fourth Amendment requires that no persons should be searched and/or arrested without a probable cause. Although the detectives found the contraband in the buyer’s possession and money paid for the cocaine in the seller’s possession, there existed no exigent circumstance warranting an arrest without warrant.

In order to be legal arrest, they should have followed the suspects and conducted a thorough investigation and applied for a search warrant and an arrest warrant from a neutral judge stating the justifying the circumstances and identity of the persons arrested and property to be searched.ReferencesMason, A. T., & Stephenson, J. D. (2012). American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases. Pearson Custom Publishing.Terry v.Ohio, 392 U.S. 1,88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 I.Ed. 2d 889 (U.S.

Supreme Court 1868).