Arrest Disregarding the Need for Quantum of Information Paper Example

Introduction

The provisions of the Fourth Amendment Act of the US Constitution protect the rights of every individual by legally allowing them to secure their properties as well as the individual security against any form of unreasonable seizures and searches. This requires that there are legal frameworks which define the conditions and methods guiding inquiry they are the immediate suspects of information from an individual even of criminal offenses. This confirms the fact that a suspect has the authority they have they have over their properties and their security. It, therefore, follows adequate information should be gathered red to confirm the violation of legal frameworks. Otherwise, the law enforcers themselves will have violated the rights of the individual in question. A similar situation occurs in the case of T.W.Z. who is now a defendant after having been arrested for being in the possession of methamphetamine. However, the procedure through which this evidence was found and the subsequent arrest was unlawful; it was against the provision of the Fourth Amendment which emphasizes on the need for a responsible search and seizures. There could, therefore, be some level of doubt regarding the quantum of information necessary for a reasonable person to believe that a crime has taken place or will take place. The client, as a result, has three claims, concerning the harassment relative to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

1.The detention of Defendant's vehicle on the side of the road, beyond the purpose of the stop (to give a warning for short mud-flaps), was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment

The detention of the defendant's vehicles was unreasonable and a violation to his right because it proceeded beyond the acceptable purpose, or what would be acceptable under the fourth amendment act of the American constitution. On the same note, the officers assumed the need to leave the dominion power with the individual even as long as the exercise was based on investigatory purposes. The fourth amendment emphasizes on the need for protection on one's right in such cases and may issue exemplary options for arrest against an investigatory stop. For example, the police office officer has the right to undertake a Terry stop only in the condition that the driver of a vehicle is detailed for a reasonable period, otherwise the fourth amendment intervenes and the individual is protected from any further legal action. According to United States V. Sharpe (675), an investigative stop should be responsible and the associated detention should reflect on a probable case; "The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, because the investigative stops failed to meet the Fourth Amendment's requirement of brevity governing detentions on less than probable cause, the marihuana should have been suppressed as the fruit of unlawful seizures." This implies that even if the police officer is law enforcers, at these instances they should have less controlling power to avoid infringing the personal liberty of an individual for the individual stopped. Investigatory stops should be short and temporary questioning; however, the case of T.W.Z. violated his right as provided in the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the act was reasonable and his claim can be confirmed valid.

2.Once law enforcement seized Defendant's vehicle on the side of the road, having the effect of denying the Defendant access to his vehicle, a warrant was needed to search the vehicle

There the need for an officer to present a search warrant before invading an individual's properly. Besides, the owner of the vehicle has the authority over his property and should never be prevented from accessing it. Compliance with provision indicates that accessing someone's property should be done following his or her acceptance. This reflects the provisions of the Fourth Amendment of the US constitution which shows some level of protection one is entitled regarding search and seizure. The officers had the right to issue the stop because there could be a reasonable suspicion which is considered sufficient to justify such brief stops and with reasonable detention detentions. However, the suspicion and is no evidence and the need to do an inquiry required a search which would only be authorized through the presentation of a search warrant.

It was a requirement that officers had to justify the seizure, which is only possible through presenting a warrant which is a legal document justifying and allowing investigation. Lack of a warranty deems the act unlawful and this is defined by the Fourth Amendment. According to Abel V. United States (217), a seizure of a property should be done within a lawful context. For the case of the defendant in question, the denial from the access of his vehicles was a violation of this requirement. The interaction between the officers and the defendant do not fall within the bounds of the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This is because it involved limited meaningful interference with the individual's possessory interests in the given property. Significant interference was therefore caused to the owner of the vehicle now that there was no warrant and prevented from demonstrating his authority over his property.

3.The violations alleged rendered any contraband discovered in the Defendant's vehicle "fruit from the poisonous tree, and therefore subject to suppression by the Court.

The defendant's claim that the evidence was tainted could be right since the whole course was illegal. The fruit from the poisonous tree is legal metaphor mostly referred to in the United States court of law to refer to the act of consulting the source of evidence in an illegal manner; therefore, the evidence itself is not accepted in the legal context and is regarded as tainted. His claim on the same would be accepted since it is within the bounds of the fourth amendment. The main argument that the Defendant advances is based on his understanding of the need for search warrant otherwise the evidence is deemed "poisonous" and would be dismissed by the court of law. Besides, the search led to a warrantless arrest which was unconstitutional therefore, the evidence seized the pursuant to the search warrant issued, which was actually unlawful.

For the case of the defendant in question, the police officers violated the associated legal framework, therefore, the exclusionary rule is set to apply. According to Wong Sun V. United States (471), this draws from the need for the police officers to avoid conducting unreasonable seizures and searches which requires them to have a probable cause, which was, however, lacking in this case. The police officers took authority over handling the vehicle and proceeded to look for evidence. This, with respect to the provisions of the Fourth Amendment, the evidence was obtained in a wrong and illegal way. The evidence will therefore not count in the court of law and therefore Supreme Court is most likely to hold his claims by do the dismissing the reports reference. The protection of the defendant is therefore guaranteed under the given aspect of the Fourth Amendment.

Conclusion

The Fourth Amendment offers conditions for protection to a defendant. This implies even if the evidence is genuine. The police officers should recognize the need to respect the rights of an individual while still being suspected or at the time of arrest. The cases include investigatory stops which are meant to be brief and should not go beyond the intended purpose. When the stops take too long, the vehicle driver's right is violated. Besides, the dominion power should always be granted to the owner of a property and the f there may be the need to conduct a search, he or she should be allowed the opportunity to access the given property without limitation. Furthermore, a warrantless search is illegal and the evidence obtained as a result is illegal as well. The Fourth Amendment is therefore meant to provide for the protection of the rights of a defendant in case rights are violated.

Works Cited

The US. Supreme Court. Abel V. United States. 362 U.S., 1960, p. 217.

The U. S. Supreme Court. United States V. Sharpe. 470 U.S., 1985, p. 675.

The U. S. Supreme Court. Wong Sun V. United States. 371 U.S., 1963, p. 471.