Individual Freedom

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation 

Individual Freedom

The US constitution’s Fourth Amendment according to Gov (1992) protects the privacy of an individual and the right of every citizen to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in their property, business and homes, whether through searchers at businesses and homes, arrests or police stops of citizens on the street. The definitive goal of this provision is the protection of freedom and right to privacy from arbitrary governmental intrusions.  In order for an individual to have a standing on the right of privacy protection, he/she should have a standing on claiming protection under the Fourth Amendment, by demonstrating an expectation of privacy. The State has the mandate of establishing higher standards for seizures and searches than required by the Fourth Amendment, but they should not allow conducts violating this amendment.

Mr. Smith was arrested by police officers who searched his home without warrant after a call from his neighbor of burglary and possession of stolen property of his neighbor. They did this out of fear that Mr. Smith would get rid of the items before the officers returned with a search warrant. The Fourth Amendment according to LII (2017) provides constitutional protection to persons when police officers enter their apartment searching for evidence of a crime. Mr. Smith was thus protected by the constitution in the Fourth Amendment. However, the Fourth Amendment protection can be waived if a person consents voluntarily, or does not object to the collected evidence through a warrantless seizure or search. On our case, the neighbor forced his way in to Mr. Smith house and upon calling the officers; Mr. Smith was arrested with a warrantless search or seizure.

Philosophical Underpinning

However, a warrantless arrest is justified in case of an urgent need and probable cause are present prior to the arrest. For example, a warrantless arrest is applicable in a situation where the police officer beliefs that the suspect is a threat to the public or have committed the crime, which is applicable to Mr. Smith’s case. The police officers felt the urgency to arrest Mr. Smith due to the fear that he would get rid of the stolen property. This exclusion clause is also applicable to the case because, the officers had the evidence of the committed crime. This is similar to the case, State v. Helmbright 990 N.E.2d 154, where a warrantless search of a place of residence or probationer’s person complies with the Fourth Amendment because the officer conducting the search had “reasonable grounds” of believing that the probationer failed in complying with his probation (Gov, 1992).

The statutes continue to limit warrantless arrests which are subject to the US Constitution’s due process guaranty. Therefore, Mr. Smith who is arrested without a warranty is entitled to a 48 hours for prompt judicial determination. Also, using the exclusionary rule, all evidences obtained from the violation of the Fourth Amendment are exclusion in the criminal proceedings. If law enforcement officers violate the constitutional right of an individual, under the Fourth Amendment, and a seizure or search deemed unlawful, all evidences resulting from seizure or search, is likely to be kept out of any criminal case against the individual whose rights were violated. 

The Fourth Amendment also warrants a police officer to arrest without a warrant in preventing them from preserving evidence or escape(Gov, 1992). However, a warrantless arrest is invalidated if the law enforcement officer fails to demonstrate exigent circumstances. This is one philosophical underpinning that influenced the ruling of the court. 

Social Forces Influencing the Case

One of the social factors that influenced the ruling of the case is the mode by which the police officers were alerted about the burglary of property. The society takes issues on their hands and that’s why Mr. Smith’s neighbor entered the house with force. It is common that if the police officers left to get their warrant, the evidence would be forged. This is the main reason why the officers saw the urgency of the issues and used a warrantless arrest. Another social factor that influenced the case is the fact that Mr. Smith did not request for warrant from the officers intrusion. This may portray his lack of knowledge on his privacy rights according to the Fourteenth Amendment. If he had insisted on warranty before the search, the officers would not have another option rather than going for their warrants. The court ruling was also influenced by previous and familiar cases.

During the Mapp v. Ohio case, the US Supreme Court argued that even if the search was done unreasonably or without authority, it was not restricted from using the unconstitutionally seized evidence at trial. In this, they cited Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25 (1949) case, where the Court held that in a prosecution in a State court for a State crime, the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure.” The Court also noted that “constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. . . . It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.” Concluding, the Court held it unconstitutional the use of seized evidence(Justia, 2017).

In the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914), the framers of the constitution argued that the Fourth Amendment puts the United States’ Courts and Federal  officials in the exercise of their authority and power under restraints and limitations (FindLaw, 2017). They argues that they have the duty of giving force and effect as an obligation upon all that are entrusted in the law enforcement Federal systems. The Supreme Court while dealing with evidence that was seized unconstitutionally, it concluded that the Fourth Amendment that declares the search of evidence of an offense is of no value and should be stricken off from the constitution. The framers of the Constitution in this case continue to argue that the efforts put by the officials and the courts in bringing the guilty to punishment should not be assisted sacrifice of those great principles that were established during the years of suffering and endeavor that ensued their embodiment in the land fundamental law.

According to the framers of the Constitution in the case of Wolf v. Colorado, the exclusionary rule should not be an essential ingredient for the Fourth Amendment. This is because the right it embodies is vouchsafed by the Due Process Clause against the States. This case also is against what it calls “weighty testimony” where they state that the Federal rule is either too lax or too strict (Justia, 2017). The framers of constitution also argue that in the Federal courts continues to use the weeks case’s exclusionary rule while failing to suggest if they have rendered ineffective the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the criminal justice administration in federal courts continues to be disrupted. 

Conclusion

Therefore Mr. Smith’s case ruling can be determined by the previous court’s ruling. The ruling should thus be determined by philosophical arguments in the previous cases. The warrantless arrest is more than applicable in this case as it illustrates the offense guaranteeing arrest as well as urgency of arrest. His wrong doing should not be shielded by his right of privacy in the Fourth Amendment. The exclusion rule can also be applied in this case.

References

FindLaw,. (2017). WEEKS v. US. Find Law For Legal Professionals. Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/232/383.html

Gov,. (1992). FOURTH AMENDMENT SEARCH AND SEIZURE (1st ed.). Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-10-5.pdf

Justia,. (2017). Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Justia US Supreme Court, 367. Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/643/case.html

LII,. (2017). Fourth Amendment. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment