Concepts of U.S. V. Watson, 423 US 411

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

Facts
Main Issues
Holdings
Rationale
Concurring Opinions
Dissenting Opinions
Conclusion
Reference List

Facts

The case mainly focuses on application of correct criminal procedures by law enforcing agent and effects that result from violation of such procedures. Following information on stolen credit cards, Postal office’s inspectors went ahead and organized a meeting between the informant (Khoury) and the respondent (Watson). Upon receiving a signal from the informant on availability of the additional credit cards, the officers conducted an unwarranted arrest. After arresting the respondent, as dictated by criminal procedures, the officers read the required Miranda warnings to Watson to avoid invalidation of any evidences they collected. After the Miranda warnings and consent from the Watson, the officers went ahead and conducted a search on the respondent, whereby upon discovering the respondent had credit cards; they extended their search to his vehicle, where they got two more credit cards with identities different from the respondent’s. Although the respondent filed a motion for omission of the got cards from evidence, the prosecution used them as evidence, hence convicting the respondent with an offense of having stolen packages (Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center, 2010, p.1).

Later on, the appeal court reversed the conviction on grounds that, the officers had violated the respondent’s rights by conducting an un-warranted arrest and search, hence all the evidence the officers collected was null. Seven courts of appeal judges handled the case namely: Burger, Rehnquist, Stevens, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Powell, and Stewart, and Marshall, and White; White presented the courts final verdict. The case’s argument took place on October 8, 1975, whereby later on, on January 26, 1976; the court passed its final verdict.

Main Issues

The main issues in this case were:

Was Watson’s arrest legal or constitutional?
Did the law warrant the search conducted by the officers?

Holdings

Considering conditions that surrounded the case, the district court validated the arrest because the officers used tips got from a reliable source hence; their actions were within governing statutes and regulations. In addition, it said the arrest was legal because the respondent had granted them the permission to search him and his vehicle. On the other hand, reading of the Miranda warnings proved adherence to criminal procedures, hence the officers never broke any section of the fourth amendment.

The judges of the court of appeal based their decision to reverse the ruling on the following arguments: firstly, Khoury was not a reliable source; hence, the arrest was illegal (unauthorized. C.F. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590). This is because the arresting officers had no arrest warrant and sufficient time to acquire one. Secondly, the fourth amendment never granted the prosecution rights of using the cards found in Watson’s car as evidence, on grounds that the arresting officers had no consent from Watson to conduct the searches, hence granting him certiorari. 420 U.S. 924 (1975) (FindLaw, 2010, p.1).

Rationale

The court made its holding on grounds that: firstly, considering the activities that transpired before the officers obtained the cards; the officers had violated Watson’s rights. Secondly, because the arrest was un-warranted therefore the searches were illegal, hence reversing the court’s verdict.

Concurring Opinions

Judge Rehnquist, Burger, Powell, and Blackmun had concurring opinions, although there were some hitches resulting from use of evidence information collected. They argued that, to some extent the arrest procedure was wrong; the officers conducted the searches upon request.

Dissenting Opinions

Judge Marshall, Burger and Brennan filed dissenting opinions on condition that, there was need to consider evidences obtained because the arresting officers used information from a reliable source, hence had reasonable reasons for the arrest. On the other hand, considering provisions by the post office law 39 CFR 232.5 (a) (3) (1975); any of its officers had the powers of arresting any individuals without arrest warrants; hence the officers conduct was constitutionally correct.

Conclusion

In conclusion, although the appeal court had reasons to reverse the ruling, there was need to consider all the forth amendments provisions and the postal office’s laws.

Reference List

FindLaw. (2010). U.S. Supreme Court United States V. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976) 423 U.S. 411: United States v. Watson. Certiorari to the United States court of appeals for the ninth circuit. Findlaw. Web.

Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. (2010). United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976). Justia. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!