Procedural Law And The Bill Of Rights - Free Essay Example

The United States legal system is made of the legal principles drawn from the case decisions that make up the case laws and the state and federal constitutions. These two are the sources of the fundamental principles and rights of the citizens in the US. First, looking into the US Federal Constitution, we have the Bill of Rights which gives the people their rights to participate in the administration of justice by the federal administration and preserves their rights as the majority to institute or abolish the government. The first ten amendment of the US Constitution forms this important tenant of the founding of the US and gives the states the capability to examine and prevent abuses perpetrated by the federal government. The state constitutions on the other hand have the laws binding the citizens of a given state but they must be consistent with the federal laws set out in the US Constitution (Steenken Brooks, 2014). Any contradictions arising from state enacted law may be argued in a constitutional court and if found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Federal Constitution, they are declared as unconstitutional. The case laws or judicial decisions which become stare decisis is another source of the rights of the citizens of the US. Case laws represent codified court decisions that have been passed in a certain court and are biding to the citizens of that state. Once a verdict has been made by a court, that decision is binding for the lower courts and is used to make judgements on cases of similar nature and is referred to as precedent (Steenken Brooks, 2014). The US legal system thus dwells on these decisions combined with the legislations passed by the states by the elected representatives to form the rule established by the majority but one that protects the rights of the minorities. Steps of the criminal justice system from arrest to imprisonment The criminal prosecution develops and unfolds from arrest of a suspect to sometime before, during or after trials depending on the outcome of the police investigation. The process of trying a suspected criminal begins with their arrest. A police officer may carry out an arrest informed on several circumstances. First, an officer may have observed a person committing a crime which requires that the officer is at the scene of crime. Second, an officer may have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime. Lastly, the officer may have obtained a valid arrest warrant from a court upon convincing a judge that he suspects a certain individual is involved in a crime (Houston, Bridgmon, Parsons, 2016). The officer informs the suspect o the reason for being arrested and is required to inform them their rights. The police officer proceeds to book the person and placing them in custody. If the offence is minor, the suspect can be released and instruct them to appear in court a t a later date for the mentioning and determination of their case. For persons held in custody, they may be issued with bail after booking or a bail healing may be scheduled by the court at a later date. A bail is given in exchange of release pending the hearing and determination of the case. A person may also be released on their own recognizance where they commit in writing that they will cooperate in the court process. This happens after the court considers the seriousness of the offence, the criminal record of the suspect and the possible threat posed by the suspect to self, family and the community (Houston, Bridgmon, Parsons, 2016). Amendment related to arrest, Seizures and Search The Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution is a protection of the personal privacy of all citizens from unreasonable intrusion by the government into their property, homes or businesses. This amendment places safeguards to individuals during detention and searches and prevents the use of unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. A police officer, for instance cannot enter a suspected criminals premises in search of evidence without a valid search warrant, an arrest warrant or a probable cause for believing that the suspect has committed a crime. Any evidence obtained or confession made by a suspect who under no special circumstances is a victim of violation of their Fourth Amendment rights cannot stand in trial. Probable cause and reasonable suspicion Reasonable suspicion is used to refer to what a normal or average person would consider suspicious (Kelly, 2013). For instance, an officer on duty notices a car leaving a bar and the car cannot stay on its lane. After following the car and stopping it, he notice the smell of alcohol coming from the car. This officer may be said to have stopped the driver on reasonable suspicion of being drunk. Probable cause on the other hand is a case where an officer believes that there is a general probability that any of the following has occurred: a person has committed a crime, a certain location has served as a crime scene and there is need to search it, a certain location holds evidence of crime or items located in a certain location have been stolen and need to seized to be used as evidence (Kelly, 2013). Both probable cause and reasonable suspicion are subjective to the discretion of the law enforcement officer. Examples of where exclusionary rule may not apply First, in situations where consent was given by a party with standing-a person whose rights were allegedly contravened. In this case, the entry of the police officer is not seen as illegal since the suspect allowed the officer to search their property (Gardner Anderson, 2016). A second case is where evidence is obtained in in a private search carried out by a private person. Under the independent source doctrine, there is the exception to admit evidence obtained by private persons through legal activities for use in trial. Private searches also include government searches when the government participates in a search. Case Law related to the use of Force In (Scott v. Harris, 2005), police witnessed Victor Harris speeding at 73 miles an hour in 55 miles per hour zone. Upon stopping him, he sped off and police officer Scott joined in the chase. He later after about six minutes of chasing received authorization to use force to stop him. This is where he used the push bumper to make contact with Harrys car causing it to lose control and roll on an embankment sustaining serious injuries (Scott v. Harris, 2005). Victor Harris argued in court that this constituted the use of deadly force outside the constitutional and reasonable requirements of a police officer. The court ruled in favour of Scott as the pursuit of a fleeing criminal required the officer to make a split-second decision to stop the suspect and that the law did not exclusively declare what the use of deadly force was in such a pursuit.