Administrative Justification - Essay Example

Administrative Justification Introduction Administrative justification refers to court-creation and an exceptionto the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Searches conducted by the police based on administrative justification are accepted under the law. Administrative searches should not be used in discovering evidence of crime. In particular, a balancing test is used. The search must respect individual privacy needs and public safety. Administrative justifications can also be referred to as particular needs or regulatory searches. Administrative justification is based on the idea that protection of public interest should outweigh personal concerns of privacy (Wray 4). The supreme has allowed four types of searches. The first search is referred to as general home inspections. General home inspections involve code inspections and welfare inspections. Code inspections must be done through particular arrest warrants. However, welfare inspections are not required to seek for warrants (Wray 4). The second search involves inspections of regulated businesses. The search warrant on these businesses is allowed if the government has an interest in the activity at stake. Searches conducted without warrants help the government to protect public interests. Consequently, inspection protocol ensures that the government has substitute for warrant that is accepted under the constitution. The third inspection involves fire inspections. This inspection is related to arson investigations. In addition, arson investigation are allowed without a warrant, but must be related to the fire. Finally, the government, with or without a warrant, can allow and search international mail. In Colorado v. Bertine case, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) case, the Colorado police arrested a suspect for driving under the influence of alcohol. The police arrested the suspect, however, before the car could be impounded; other police officers engaged in inventory checks. They opened the car’s contents and found various drugs being peddled in the van. Before trial, the suspect was granted an opportunity to suppress the evidence obtained in the van. The court ruled that the inventory search conducted in the van did not violate the suspect’s rights. The decision of the court was made according to Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution (Findlaw.com par 1). Inventory searches are classified into two varieties. The first variety is known as vehicle inventories while the second variety is known as person inventories. Vehicle inventories must be done according to a lawful impoundment. Vehicle inventories are conducted, by the police, to protect the owner’s property, protect the police against stolen property claims and to protect society from dangerous items contained in the vehicle. In addition, vehicle inventories should not be based on the pretext that can show investigative police motive behind the impounding of the vehicle. Person inventories happen after an arrest (Wray 7). Conclusion Person inventories are carried out as part of a search incident to arrest, with some possible follow-up and documentation at the booking stage. Person inventories should not be used as pretext which can show investigative police motive in conducting the search. However, person inventories can be followed by a lawful arrest. Vehicle inventories carried out at nations’ checkpoints are aimed at identifying individuals in the vehicle. 2. What is an arrest? Introduction An arrest refers to inability to have legal freedom in moving around freely. The law enforcement police ensures that an individual doe not escape from law obligations. However, for an individual to be under arrest, the police officer or prison personnel must s how the reason why they want to arrest the person. After explaining the reasons leading to arrest; the police officer is expected to take the person under arrest into custody. Arrests are often made to prevent certain crimes from escalating. In particular, criminals should be arrested to avoid causing more harm to the society members (Law firm. Com, par 1). Consequently, the police officer must have evidence or crucial lead showing that the suspect engaged in criminal activities. However, there are cases whereby individuals may not be place under arrest. Such cases are referred to as a citation which includes traffic offenses. Criminals should learn that illegal arrest which is not, based on probable cause does not prevent them from being prosecuted (Law firm. Com, par 1). Arrest warrants may be required to put suspects under arrest. An arrest warrant is a lawfully approved document that gives the police officer a chance and authority to arrest a suspect. The arrest warrant is always approved by the authority such as the magistrate and the judge. Police officer must ensure that the arrest warrant contains the name of the suspect as well as the crime they have been alleged to have committed. Arrest warrants that do not have names of suspects can be challenged before a court of law (Law firm. Com, par 2). Police officers are also allowed to arrest suspects. The police officer achieves this authority through “probable cause”. Citizens have the right to be prevented from unreasonable searches. However, in cases whereby the police has been granted an affirmation, citizens can be arrested or searched. Properties can also be taken by the police after they have acquired probable cause (Law firm. Com, par 3). Investigatory Stops Investigatory stops are referred to as police stops that are not intrusive. Carrying out investigatory stops demands that; the police officer should have reasonable suspicion that the suspect committed the crime. An investigatory stop differs from an arrest because it only allows the police officer to conduct investigations. Arrest may or may not be made after the investigations. Consequently, police officer often ensures that their investigatory stops are motivated by facts. There are cases whereby a person may provide a description of the criminal. The police officer is required to ascertain the authenticity of such claims. Claims that can lead to investigatory stops should only be used after their credibility has been assessed by the police (Fromet par 3). The police officer can authorize investigatory traffic stop after having sufficient reason that the suspect engaged in traffic crimes. However, there is also no-investigatory traffic stop. In this case, the police officer is allowed to stop the suspect because they have witnessed the crime being committed. The police is then expected to show the suspect the laws that have been violated before putting the individual under arrest (Fromet par 2). Conclusion Arrest should be made according to the law. The police should ensure that suspects are shown arrest warrants before they are arrested. While carrying out investigatory stops, police should have reasonable facts and evidence that shows crime was committed by the suspect. Non-investigatory stops occur when police officers are present at the crime scene. They are expected to inform the criminal on the laws violated before arresting them. 3. Identify and define the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and the exceptions to it. Introduction Gardner and Anderson note that the exclusionary rule is applicable not only to evidence obtained directly due to improper conduct by the police but also to evidence obtained directly from the same improper conduct (183). The fruit of the poisonous tree also known as derivative evidence rule holds that, once the primary evidence is proved to have been illegally obtained, any secondary evidence obtained from it also become inadmissible. The doctrine is therefore based on the principle that improperly obtained evidence should not be used to obtain other evidence, since the original improperly obtained evidence taints all subsequently obtained evidence (Del Carmen 101). One case where the US supreme Court applied the doctrine was in the case of Silverthorne Lumber CO. v. United sates, 251 U.S. 385 (1920). For instance, if a police officer illegally enters into a house and gets the key to a storage locker, under the fruit of the poisonous tree, the key becomes the direct result of the illegal entry into the house, thus inadmissible under the court of law. However, in case the police officer uses the key to open the storage locker and finds illegal drugs or possessions, then the illegal drugs or possessions are excluded as fruits of the initial illegal entry (183). The doctrine is applicable in cases where illegally or improperly obtained evidence is the basis for discovery of other evidence that would not have been easy to obtain; a witness who might have been otherwise difficult to find and in incriminating admission or confession that would otherwise not been made if the defendant or suspect had not been confronted with the tainted evidence (Gardner and Anderson 184). This was seen in the case of Fahy v. Connecticut (1963). Exceptions of the doctrine Gardner and Anderson notes that the derivative evidence rule applies only when the challenged evidence is directly and exclusively obtained from illegal or improper police conduct (184). Nevertheless, the US Supreme Court has established certain exceptions to the doctrine in circumstances where the misconduct of the police has not interfered with the challenged evidence. a). The Independent Source Doctrine. Gardner and Anderson note that improper conduct by police may sometimes result in the discovery of evidence while at the same time another proper source results to similar evidence. As such, in case the second, legitimate source of evidence is autonomous, that is, not tainted by the improper conduct, then this evidence becomes inadmissible as was in the case between Murray V. United Sates (1988) (Gardner and Anderson 185). b). The Inevitable Discovery Rule. This rule applies in a situation where illegally discovered evidence can certainly be discovered legally. Gardner and Anderson cite that in case the police error or misconduct happens to have tainted some evidence, then this evidence, as well as the derivative evidence are suppressed, and cannot be used in a court of law to prefer criminal charges. Nevertheless, if it can be proved that the challenged derivative evidence would have been obtained through efforts of legitimate police, then the evidence become admissible under the inevitable discovery rule Gardner and Anderson 185). This exception was applied by the US Supreme Court in the case of Nix v. Williams (1984). The last exception applies where there is attenuation between the discovery of the evidence and the illegal activity. Conclusion This doctrine is indeed, one of the most practical rules, which is capable of preventing malicious entry or seizer of individual property without legitimate reason. This is due to the fact that improperly obtained evidence should not be used to obtain other evidence, since the original improperly obtained evidence virtually taints all subsequently obtained evidence 4. What is the exclusionary rule and the arguments for and against it? Introduction The exclusionary rule according to Del Carmen is the rule that provides that any evidence obtained by the government against the Fourth Amendment providing against unreasonable search and seizure is voidable in a criminal probation to prove guilt (92). Del Carmen reveals that the exclusionary rule is one of the most controversial rules in criminal procedure ever witnessed in the US history. The controversy surrounding the rule has generated debate among professionals of criminal justice at all levels with some in favor and others against it. Today, this rule is applied by courts throughout US and has a direct effect on law enforcement on a daily basis. Del Carmen notes that the rule is still being modified and refined in Supreme Court decisions. Del Carmen advises that, every law enforcement officer should thoroughly familiarize with the rule since it sometimes determines the success or failure of criminal prosecutions. Arguments in for the exclusionary rule 1. Proponents of the rule argue mainly that the pros of the rule are weitier than that its cons (Hatch 311). As such, they argue that the cost burden associated with the loss of improperly acquired but reliable evidence is not imposed by the exclusionary rule, but instead by the Fourth Amendment. 2. They maintain that it is the Fourth Amendment that renders the search and seizer illegal. 3. They cite that I cases where the police relies on the Forth Amendments, the evidence may not even be obtained in the first place. This is because the forth Amendment does not allow some guilt individuals to be set free, since an officer how complies with the law may be precluded from conducting searches and seizures, which could help unearth evidence against the guilty person. 4. They argue that even if the evidence is improperly obtained, this does not imply that the guilty person would go free. 5. They also argue that despite that fact that the rule may be considered the reason for the loss of reliable evidence, the cost charged is overrated since the majority of suppression motions are declined. 6. They argue that evidence has shown that the exclusionary rule has had positive effects on law enforcement. Augments against the exclusionary rule. Those opposed to the rule mainly base their arguments that the cost outweighs the benefits (Hatch 311). Below are some of the arguments frequently put forward against exclusionary rule: 1. That the rule imposes a cost since it causes the criminal justice system to lack respect. 2. The rule is costly since it results in loss of reliable evidence such as cocaine illegally seized in such of a car. 3. That the rule only protects those who are guilty, but not for the innocent. 4. That the rule fails to apply any direction sanction to the person whose illegal conduct results in the exclusion of evidence. 5. They also argue that the Fourth Amendment is not clear enough in most cases, as plied by courts, to necessitate a sanction for its misapplication by officers working in the field. Conclusion Despite the controversies over the exclusionary rule, what is important is that should familiarize themselves with the rule since it determines the success or failure of criminal prosecutions. Work Cited Del Carmen, Rolando. Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. 2009. Print. Findlaw.com. U.S Supreme Court: Colorado v. Berttine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987). N.d. Web. 25th September, 2012 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=479&invol=367 Fromet, Avery. Attorney at Law: investigatory stops. N.d. Web. 25th September, 2012 http://www.ohio-dui.com/tag/investigatory-stops/ Gardner, Thomas & Anderson, Terry. Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. 2009. Print. Hatch, Orrin. Excluding Relevant Evidence at Trial: Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate. New York, NY: Diane Publishing. 1995 Print. Lawfirm.com. Arrested: defendant rights at arrest. N.d. Web. 25th September, 2012 http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/criminal-defense/defendants-rights/arrested-rights-arrest.htm Wray, John. "The Inventory Search and the Arrestee's Privacy Expectation," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 59: Iss. 2, Article 6. 1984. Print. Read More