Running Head: PROCEDURAL AND BILL OF RIGHTS 1

Assignment 1: Procedural and Bill of Rights

Denotra Walker

Professor Currie Gauvreau

CRJ 325: Criminal Procedure

June 9, 2020
PROCEDURAL AND BILL OF RIGTHS 2

Basis for Rights and Fundamental Values Found in the US Legal System

The United States is known for its system of government, a common law, and written

constitution They are commonly known as statues. The courts of the nation and states created

laws and implement statues. Federal statues are grouped as the first source rights and principles

enacted in the US constitution. Specifically, the US Constitution grants power the Congress to

enforce federal laws regarding specific subjects. The Constitution further articulates that powers

that are not delegated to Congress are kept aside for the states. Federal laws begin to be

established when a senate house member introduces a statement that is debated in the senate-

house. The House of senate approves the statement whereby it is adjudicated by the president to

become a law. On the contrary, state laws are enforced by state legislatures and are only relevant

within states. However, in the event of conflicts, state laws leave room for federal and the

constitution to make decisions for the state. The protocol is stated in the US Constitution

Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2, affirming that the federal law and the Constitution are

the supreme laws of the land and therefore state laws that conflict with federal are averted.

Common law is the second basis for values and rights found in the US lawful systems. The laws

are determined by reasoning concerning universal consent and customs passed down from one

generation to another through history. Common law later became formalized by judicial

decisions thereby being referred to as case laws. They are principles established by the court by

issuing judicial decisions (Justia, 1).

Three Steps of the Criminal Justice Process

The criminal justice system is established to deliver justice and safeguard every member

of the society through effective conviction, sentence, and rehabilitation of the guilty. The

criminal justice system such as the police, corrections, and the courts achieve the objective of
PROCEDURAL AND BILL OF RIGTHS 3

justice delivery and protection of citizens through various steps that begin from the apprehension

phase and end with jail term. In particular, the major three steps comprise investigation and

arrest, trial motions, and sentencing which might result in appeal or imprisonment. The

investigation and arrest phase begins when police become aware of the crime. They gather the

information that might help solve the crime. For instance, they go to the scene, take photos,

interview eyewitnesses, and collect some physical evidence. In some cases, police officer applies

to a judge to obtain search warrant into homes or business locations associated with the crime.

The officers can then arrest suspects based on their probable cause to ascertain that the offender

engaged in the criminal activities. The police can also capture a suspect if they commit a crime in

the officer’s presence. The suspect in police custody can be granted bail if they promise to

appear in all the scheduled hearing (Justia, 2).

Grand Jury Proceedings and trial motions phase proceeds the arrest stage. Preliminary

hearings and grand jury proceedings are critical in establishing the probable cause whereby the

defendant cannot stand trial if a probable cause does not exist. An initial hearing is a

confrontational hearing where both parties make arguments while the counsel questions

witnesses. The judge finds reasonable grounds while the grand jury hears only from the side of

the prosecutor and decides whether the evidence provided to charge the offender is adequate.

During the trial phase, the jury provides a guilty or not guilty verdict. The prosecutor is forced to

provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt because they have legal duty to establish truth of

facts in a criminal trial. Finally, the jury or judge offers a verdict regarding the innocence or guilt

of the defendant upon listening to opening and closing statements, and analysis of jury and

witness directives. When the offender is found guilty by the jury, the court sentences the
PROCEDURAL AND BILL OF RIGTHS 4

perpetrator. During sentencing, the court decides the most suitable sentence for the perpetrator

(Justia, 2).

Amendments Attributed to Capture, Search, and Seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is one of the 10 revisions

of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable pursuits and seizures of people and property.

The Fourth Amendment was established to protect people against arbitrary arrests in addition to

searches and seizures. In particular, the eventual goal of the amendment was to safeguard

individuals' right to discretion and liberty of speech from warrantless searches and searches

without probable cause. The Amendment focus on ensuring that no American citizens are

arrested or searched without evidence of probable cause. Besides, no personal effects or property

of an individual will be seized without a warrant or probable cause that the item poses an

imminent danger to individuals or the public. However, the Fourth Amendment only protects

individuals against trespassing, and warrantless search from the Government and not from all

searches and seizures. Therefore, all warrantless exploration of private properties is forbidden

under the Fourth Amendment unless specific exceptions apply (Smentkowski, 3).

A person can claim abuse of the Fourth Amendment as a basis for overturning relevant

evidence. However, the respondent must prove beyond unreasonable doubt that they are the

victim of privacy intrusion and have a substantial standing to claim protection under the Fourth

Amendment. There are exceptions to permit an officer to conduct a warrantless search in various

circumstances. For example, a search without a warrant can be legal if the police have been

permitted to search the person or place. The search can also be legal when the incident permits

legal arrest and if there is probable cause to explore and urgent circumstances are influencing the

warrantless searches. On the contrary, warrantless searches are not unlawful when the properties
PROCEDURAL AND BILL OF RIGTHS 5

being hunted or captured in plain view or open fields. It is also evident that warrantless searches

or seizures of abandoned properties in the open field are not unlawful and thus do not violate the

Fourth Amendment (Smentkowski, 3).

Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion

The United State’s police officers can take action against someone based on two reasons

encompassing reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is a concept that

police officers use to validate their effort to pursue criminals. Reasonable suspicion gives the

right to an officer to pursue a defendant if there is substantial reason to believe that their attempt

would uncover acts of crime or actions related to crime. The concept is relevant in crime

investigation is often validated because it is what a reasonable or normal person can consider

suspicious. Moreover, police have reasonable suspicion when there are circumstances and facts

evident that an offense has been committed or about to occur (Legal Information Institute , 4).

On the other hand, probable cause provides an officer with more power to conduct

searches, arrest a suspect, or seize properties. The concept works in the same way as reasonable

suspicion but is more powerful considering that the officer, in this case, has information to think

that a crime has been committed. Therefore, while reasonable suspicion is based on thoughts,

probable cause is verifiable and indicates substantial evidence that a crime has been committed

or is about to do. Probable cause gives a police officer the right to arrest a suspect, conduct

searches, and seizures. It can also enable an office to obtain a warrant from a judge to arrest or

search a property. The two concepts are similar in their application considering that they all

might lead to an arrest, detention or searches, and seizures. However, the main difference is

evident in the severity level between reasonable suspicion and probable cause (Legal Information

Institute, 4).
PROCEDURAL AND BILL OF RIGTHS 6

Examples in which Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply

The exceptional rule is used to prevent the government or a police officer from presenting

proof that was acquired in defilement of the Fourth Amendment in a trial. The rule is used to

safeguard the defendant against illegal arrest, search, and seizures. However, the exclusionary

rule has various exceptions acquired in violation of the Fourth Amendment[ CITATION Jus18 \l

1033 ]. Among the most common exceptions to the exclusionary rule is the availability of

palpable evidence. In particular, if an officer finds tangible proof based on the statements

obtained in defilement of the Miranda right during an arrest, the prosecutor can use the evidence

against the perpetrator at a trial. The situation can be validated if the prosecuting attorney argues

that in the end, the police would have found tangible evidence upon searching the place. Another

example that is an exception to the exclusionary rule is public safety. The Fourth Amendment

can be violated if the police officer reasonably believes that a situation poses an imminent danger

to the public. Such an officer is allowed to interrogate the suspect or detain them. They are also

allowed to search the premises and seize property. Moreover, if the police find a piece of

evidence, or weapon as a result of the interrogation or search, the weapon can be used as

evidence against the suspect at the trial (Smentkowski, 3).

Case Law Related to the Use of Force

White V. Pauly

Daniel Pauly was reported driving recklessly while drunk that led to a road rage incident

with two women. After a confrontation between the women and Daniel, he left for his home

while the two women reported the matter to the Police. The officers responded to the issue by

visiting the Pauly home to speak to Daniel about the mater. Therefore, the officers approached
PROCEDURAL AND BILL OF RIGTHS 7

Daniel’s resident secretly using their flashlights. Daniel and Samuel became aware of the police

and shouted at them informing them that they have guns. Officer white, on the other hand, drew

his gun and took cover behind a stone wall approximately 50 feet from the front of the house.

Daniel fired two shots through the back door while Samuel opened the front door and was shot

dead by officer White. Daniel and Samuel Sued the officers and claimed that the police abused

their Fourth Amendment privilege to be safeguarded against the use of excessive force. The

officer claimed for summary and argued that they were eligible to qualified immunity as a result

of their action and that they did not violate an established constitutional right whereby a sensible

person would have known. However, the court refuted the motion and the U.S Court of Appeals

for Tenth Circuit advocated for the judgment (Oyez, 5).

The court stipulated that a sensible officer should have been aware that their secret

actions would force the brothers to protect their residence in a way that would influence the

officers to use excessive force in response. The misconduct was more evident in officer White’s

situation considering that he arrived at the scene later than the others. The appellate court

affirmed that the officer should have given a warning before firing. The court further ascertained

that the rules were established during the incident. An officer who does not shout a warning

before shooting in a confrontation violates the victim’s Fourth Amendment right and does not

hence do not constitute the violation of an established Fourth Amendment right to be protected

against the use of deadly force (Oyez, 5).

PROCEDURAL AND BILL OF RIGTHS 8

References

1. Justia. (2020). US Law, Case Law, Codes, Statutes, and Regulations. Retrieved from

Justia: https://law.justia.com/

2. Justia. (2018, April). Stages of a Criminal Case. Retrieved from Justia:

https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/stages-of-a-criminal-case/

3. Smentkowski, B. (2018, April 12). Fourth Amendment. Retrieved from Encyclopedia

Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fourth-Amendment

4. Legal Information Institute. (2018). Reasonable Suspicion. Retrieved from Legal

Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion

5. Oyez. (2017, January 9). White V. Pauly. Retrieved from Oyez:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/16-67