Fourth Amendment in Bailey v. United States

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Facts about the Case
Supreme Court’s Ruling
Analysis
Opinion
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Many different amendments form the American constitution. American Constitution is the supreme law that guides the actions, activities, conduct, and behaviors of citizens and residents. One of the American Constitutional Amendments is the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment of the US Constitution provides that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches, and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized” (Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com) The words in this amendment endeavors to protect two fundamental interests of right to privacy as well as freedom from any arbitrary invasions.

Based on many cases in the US, the Supreme Court has attempted to provide a clear understanding of the amendment. One of the cases that have brought a lot of controversy into its facts and decision based on the fourth amendment is the case of Bailey v United States. The following discussion and analysis provide a deeper cross-sectional dissection of the case about the fourth amendment (Americanbar.org)

Facts about the Case

In the case of Bailey v United States, the defendant, Bailey was stopped by police officers from the District of Columbia in May 1989 for lack of front license plates, which are supposed to be part of vehicles (Oyez.org). Bailey’s car did not have a license plate hence the stoppage by the police officer. Surprisingly, Bailey was unable to produce a driver’s license and this worsened the situation. The police officer ordered Bailey out of the car and in the process discovered that he (Bailey) stuffed something between the seat and front console. Bailey’s action of stuffing something between the seat and console aroused the police suspicion, which then led to a serious search. (Bailey v. the United States, 516 U.S. 137)

The search by police established that Bailey had 27 plastic bags containing approximately 30 grams of cocaine and a nine-millimeter pistol (Oyez.org). Two years later, the police obtained a search warrant to search Robinson’s house after police suspected that was Bailey’s accomplice (Oyez.org). The search obtained an unloaded 0.22 caliber pistol besides 11 grams of cocaine. In addition, the search obtained some $20 bills related to one of the previous purchases of cocaine.

Question Presented

The main question presented to the Supreme Court of the United States of America for judgment in regards to this case was whether the fourth amendment permitted police officers, after searching for a deadly weapon within a private residence, to detain an occupant who is believed to have been the last to leave the vicinity, especially when the detention was conducted within a give reasonable time (Oyez.org). The Supreme Court of the United States of America had to make such a judgment based on the above-presented question.

Court’s Rulings

Bailey and Robinson were then charged with various charges that included amongst others possession of illicit drugs and violations of the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1), which provides that an individual should not carry firearms during and within any crime related to drugs (Oyez.org). Bailey and Robinson were both convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) but appealed (Law.cornell.edu).

During the appeal court’s proceedings, a three-judge bench convicted Bailey under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) whilst another three-judge bench reserved Robinson’s charges on the same law. In a bid to resolve the disparity of the rulings, the courts held that an individual is considered guilty of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) if the gun is in a position that is easily accessible (Law.cornell.edu). Therefore, an individual is considered to be using a gun during a drug crime if the gun is in a position that is easily accessible (Oyez.org). In both Bailey’s and Robinson’s cases, the guns were easily accessible hence were guilty as charged under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Law.cornell.edu). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court agreed to review the cases between Bailey and Robinson under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

Supreme Court’s Ruling

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court rejected the D.C. Circuit’s interpretations of the case in respect to U.S.C. § 924(c) concerning the possession of firearms during and within drug crimes (Law.cornell.edu). The Supreme Court concluded that using a firearm requires active employment and not necessarily on the basis that the firearm is within reach (Theatlantic.com). In addition, the Supreme Court confirmed that based on the statutes of the United States liability on firearms is not placed on mere possessions but only when they are actively employed. It does not mean therefore that anyone who has a firearm is guilty of its use unless there is active employment of the same.

Supreme Court confirmed that the D.C Circuit court erred in making the ruling on the basis that its definition of the use of firearms was wrong. Defining the use as accessibility or proximity of the firearm was inappropriate and unlawful as alluded to by the Supreme Court (Theatlantic.com). If the definition of the term used was on the same aspect then many people would have been guilty of the crime including those who have firearms for protecting their houses. Therefore, the Supreme Court confirms that the ruling by the D.C Circuit was wrong on the definition of the term used in respect to firearms as well as the U.S.C. § 924(c) (Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692)

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court also confirmed that the statute’s language was unclear on the use of firearms. For instance, the Supreme Court confirmed that it would have been difficult for the government to prove a violation of the U.S.C. § 924(c) if the use was not merely by possession (Law.cornell.edu). In any case, “use” in legal aspects related to the statute could mean aspects such as “availing”, “carrying”, “converting to a service”, and “employ” amongst others. All these definitions stem from mere possession. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision or ruling was the two were not guilty as charged especially because Bailey’s gun was in the car’s trunk and Robinson’s pistol was in the bedroom closet. Therefore, the two were considered not guilty by the Supreme Court.

Analysis

Revision of the case to suit the defendants by the Supreme Court spurs a lot of concerns and arguments in respect to the fourth amendment as well as the possession of firearms. In the above case, it is difficult to identify whether the two were guilty as charged. Based on U.S.C. § 924(c), it becomes very difficult under the fourth amendment to define the term ‘use’ concerning firearms (Law.cornell.edu). It is confusing to allude that the term ‘use’ was wrongly employed by the D.C. Circuit courts, which delivered a judgment confirming that Bailey and Robinson were guilty as charged. Revising the charges by the Supreme Court is challenging especially following the fact that related statutes do not provide a clear definition of “use of firearms”. Therefore, there was a serious need to understand the definition of the term ‘use’ in respect to firearms.

Opinion

In my personal opinion, the ruling of the Supreme Court was not correct. Based on the provisions of the fourth amendment, it is important that even though individuals have a right against searches and seizures, there is no harm in searching or seizing a person’s belonging especially when it has been established that there are some strong suspicions on the same (Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com). Given that there were no violations of the individual’s right in respect to privacy as well as freedom on their personal property as there were true suspicions, it, therefore, follows that the two should have been found guilty. It is difficult to ascertain that the two were not using the guns during and within the drug crime on the mere basis that the firearms were not within proximity or rather were inaccessible at the point in time mentioned. The mere fact that Bailey and Robinson had guns and were involved in drug crime should be enough to confirm that the two were guilty as charged.

Conclusion

From the above case analysis of Bailey v United States, many aspects arise. For instance, there is a need to abide by the provisions of the fourth amendment. According to the fourth amendment, an individual has a right to privacy as well as the freedom to enjoy personal belongings. However, this should not be a basis for persons to engage in criminal activities just because they cannot be searched or seized. Any suspicions must warrant serious search and possible seizure of property if the suspected person has been involved in criminal activities. Lastly, the case analysis also provides an understanding of possession and use of firearms especially during and within drug crimes.

References

Americanbar.org. In the Supreme Court of the United States: Chunon L. Nailey v United States of America. Web.

Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995) Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com. Fourth Amendment- Search and Seizure. Web.

Law.cornell.edu. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1). Web.

Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) Oyez.org. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Web.

Theatlantic.com. What the ‘Bailey’ Case May Reveal About Supreme Court Ideology. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!