Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
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.
Opinion for the Court
The overall direction and specific content of the activities of the various police institutions play a key role in the debate on the issue of ensuring the natural, inalienable, and constitutionally enshrined human rights (Fallon, 2013). The attention is due primarily to the presence of the bodies of powerful coercion (police authorities) in the state machine that gives them a significant potential in the preservation and protection of the legally fixed rights and freedoms of the population (primarily natural and inalienable human rights to life, liberty, personal integrity, and human dignity).
However, it is also related to the formation of an objective threat to the systematic and gross violations of these rights. A reliable estimate of the scale of violations of the constitutional rights and freedoms by police forces is a difficult task due to the lack of official statistics in this area, imperfections in registration mechanisms of such cases, as well as the fact that many victims avoid filing complaints of the corresponding character (Feinman, 2014).
It should be noted that due to deep-rooted social contradictions, the problem of inadequate compliance with constitutional rights and freedoms in the activities of police forces remains valid in the United States. This issue is acute despite the fact that the state has a developed political and legal culture, long history of the existence of the written Constitution, as well as significant experience in the practical implementation of its provisions.
The Language of Prior Decisions and Arguments
According to the case description, Mr. James Smith is a citizen of the State of California who has been arrested for burglary of the apartment of his neighbor. The neighbor forced entered Mr. Smith’s house to check if the stolen items were there and called the police. The warrant was not benefited, but the police arrested Mr. Smith without further ado. The setting evidences that the man was denied equal protection for several reasons. It is important to mention that there were cases similar to Smith’s that can prove the illegal act, for instance, the case of People v. Cahan (Justia, 1955). It happened in the state of California as well, which is crucial.
According to the case, the exclusionary rule was appositional across this state. The Supreme Court applied such a regulation. In accordance with this principle, the evidence, that was produced or gathered by breaking the law that prohibits furnishing unreasonable searches and seizures, is to be eliminated from contemplation during the trial. The Fourth Constitutional Amendment secures prohibition (Fallon, 2013). In addition, such violation of the rule of law shall be considered breaking the constitutional rights of an individual. Furthermore, the principle can also be linked with another amendment stating that no one can be forced to provide testimony against him or herself. Another aspect of this issue is that the exclusionary rule implies that no individual can be devoid of his or her proprietorship without due legal process. Thus, the evidence was overruled in the People v. Cahan case, and it is to be rejected in that of Mr. Smith.
In general, the law protects all persons on the territory of the United States, and it does not matter whether he or she is a citizen of the country or not. Each state has its own regulatory rules regarding this issue; however, in California, this rule provides for the elimination of illegal searches and seizures (Hall & Feldmeier, 2016). Apart from the fact that the rule of law is a legal norm, it also acts as a deterrent. The philosophical underpinnings control the actions of authorities that are willing to use illegal ways or methods to get proof of guilt (Feinman, 2014).
This perspective is also closely linked with the position of the Bill of Rights and constitutional guarantees considering self-incrimination (Fallon, 2013). In addition, the regulation is a guarantee of one’s right to counsel. It is important to note that the exclusionary rule works on a formal level (it does not consider the fact of committing a crime). Regardless of the evidence, it should be overruled if the way it was mined was illegal. Consequently, in the case of Mr. Smith, he was indeed devoid of equal protection under the law while the exclusionary law is applicable throughout the state of California (Hall & Feldmeier, 2016).
One of the crucial underlying issues is that the exclusionary law carries serious social context. Such situations when the police illegally searched for the evidence happened on the recurring basis, which is evidenced by multiple court hearings. The repetitive acts undermine the reliability and authority of policing. The primary aim of it is to protect the society and secure its guaranteed rights and freedoms (which are the main philosophical cores of the Bill of Rights and the constitutional law) (Fallon, 2013). Situations similar to Mr. Smith’s stress out that the structures given such an authority tend to repetitively violate the leading freedoms and civil rights of the society that have been defined by the US Constitution.
Cases and Implications
In the history of litigation, there were quite a few occurrences closely related to the Smith’s case. For instance, in Weeks v. United States, the man was suspected of selling illegal lottery tickets; according to the case description, it was a federal crime and agents arrested the man (Findlaw, 1914). The federal agents raided a man’s home and found evidence indicating his guilt. Besides the basic evidence, they seized personal belongings of the man. However, the agents did not have the warrant to conduct a search of his property.
Accordingly, they had no right to break into his house and withdraw any of his personal items. When the case was referred to the Court, the representative of Freemont demanded the return of the seized items claiming that they were collected illegally, which was a violation of the law and the constitutional rights of the client guaranteed by the country’s constitution. In addition, it was the violation of the due process philosophy regarding the legitimacy of actions (Feinman, 2014).
The court agreed with the requirements and gave Weeks back his personal belongings as well as the actual evidence since all the appliances were collected illegally. Gathering the evidence was a violation of the current regulation; therefore, everything had to be returned to the defendant (Findlaw, 1914). The main philosophical basis for this decision was the Fourth Amendment, which defined that people living in the United States were protected from unreasonable searches and seizures (Feinman, 2014).
In the case Mapp v. Ohio, the woman (Deloree Mapp) has also faced the illegal actions of the police (Justia, 1961). It was assumed that she was harboring a dangerous fugitive. Despite the fact that the police did not possess an official search warrant, they searched the woman’s home. During the search, the police went through her personal things and found items that were banned in Ohio.
The woman was found guilty of possessing prohibited materials, but her lawyer appealed based on the illegal investigation of the woman’s home and exploration of such objects that were not related to the searches for the fugitive (Justia, 1961). In the case of Mr. Smith, his neighbor broke in, but the police investigated and confiscated the evidence illegally as they lacked the appropriate warrant. For this reason, the found items cannot be considered evidence and should be overruled by the court as Mr. Smith is secured by the corresponding Amendment.
Conclusion
Policing as an institution of public power has a clearly expressed constitutional and legal value. It can be characterized by a significant potential both in positive and negative impact on the level of providing constitutional rights to life, liberty, personal integrity and human dignity (for instance, as in the field of security and protection against illegal encroachments, as well as the legal limit for the purpose of enforcement of legal regulations and violations). In other words, the mere presence of large powers and means of implementing coercion carry the possibility of misusing them notwithstanding the established constitutional and legal regulations (Feinman, 2014).
The major determinants of the mass violations of the constitutional rights and freedoms of people and citizens in the area under consideration are insufficient regulatory provisions specifying the constitutional rights and freedoms in relation to the activities of police forces. In addition, there are imperfections in terms of the organizational and managerial aspects of the legal force’s work and the absence or ineffectiveness of the functioning of independent specialized (civic) institutions.
References
Fallon, R. (2013). The dynamic Constitution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Feinman, J. (2014). Law 101. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Findlaw. (1914). Weeks v. U.S. 232. U.S. 383. Web.
Hall, D., & Feldmeier, J. (2016). Constitutional law. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Justia. (1955). People v. Cahan. Web.
Justia. (1961). Mapp v. Ohio. 367 U.S. 643. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
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.