Abstract
This article will examine the validity of arrests made by police officers upon appeal of the defendants claiming that their 4th and 5th amendment rights have been violated by the police officers. This paper will present to cases decided by the US Supreme Court that will explain if the arrests made by the police officers were valid and the issues raised by the defendants in accordance to the rights under the 4th and 5th amendment. There will be a discussion on whether the ruling of the Supreme Court was justifiable. There will also a brief discussion on the exceptions to the exclusionary rule where each of these exceptions shall be explained in detail by providing possible scenarios.
Keywords: 4th amendment, 5th amendment, police officers, arrest, and appeal.
Terry v. Ohio [392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)]
One of the cases that illustrated the validity of police arrest was in the case of Terry v. Ohio. In this particular case, the police officer saw that there were three men who were in front of a jewelry store and they had strong belief that they planned to rob the story. The police man than approached these three men and introduced himself and thereafter started frisk the defendants. Upon frisking them, the police officer discovered that two of these defendants named Terry and Chilton were carrying weapons. Upon filing cases against these two defendants, the court ruled for their conviction. Thus, they appealed their conviction and raised the issue that the police officer violated their Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure when they were frisked by the police and recovered weapons from them.
Upon appeal, the Supreme Court ruled against the defendants and upheld that validity of their conviction. The High Court held that the law enforcement officer has the right to stop and frisk a person based on reasonable grounds that such suspect is armed, and search for weapons that may be concealed in the person’s clothing. The decision of the Supreme Court explained that the Fourth Amendment right of a criminal suspect against unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated since the police officer acted upon reasonable belief that such person is armed. Thus, the act of the police officer in searching his outer clothing was performed on the basis of a reasonable suspicion and to ensure public safety.
I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Terry v Ohio because the police officer merely performed his duty when he pat down the outer layer of the clothing of the defendants who were suspected to carry illegal weapons to rob the jewelry store.
Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
One of the landmark cases on the violation of the 5th amendment on due process is the case of Miranda v Arizona. Miranda was charged for the crime of kidnapping and rape of an 18-year old victim and was arrested by the police officers at his home. He was taken to the police station where he was positively identified by one of the witnesses. While taken under police custody, he was placed under interrogation by the investigating officers for at least two hours. As a result, he made a written confession and affixed his signature. The verbal and written confessions were presented during the trial to the jury, and he was convicted for the crimes of kidnapping and rape. His jail sentence was 20-30 years imprisonment for each count for these offenses. He filed his appeal before the Supreme Court of Arizona and the High court held that there was a violation of the 5th amendment since Miranda was not allowed to consult his lawyer before the police obtained his confession.
I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court that every accused should be given the right to be assisted with a lawyer before their oral and written confession is considered admissible to be presented in court. In this given case, the accused was not given a warning that any statement he made can be used against him. The purpose of due process is to give the accused his opportunity to be heard in court and legal assistance should be accorded to him (Hess, et al., 2012).
Exceptions to the exclusionary rule
The exception to the exclusionary rule against unreasonable searches and seizures is when the police officers have a legal basis to perform the stop and frisk, more particularly when a crime had just been committed by the person to be arrested.
The exception to the violation of the 5th amendment on the Miranda warning is when the accused had been fully informed that every statement he makes can be used against his favor and that he or she is required by law to be assisted by a lawyer. However, despite the warnings, the suspect signed a waiver and made a written confession.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has decided cases on the issues involving the 4th and 5th amendment for the purpose of settling the issues that were raised on appeal by the accused, and to determine whether the constitutional rights were violated by the police during investigation of the cases. The police officers must consistently work for justice and in search for the truth, and should not violate the rights of the accused under the constitution (Hess, et al., 2012).
References:
Hess, K.M. & Hess Orthmann, K. (2012). Introduction to Law Enforcement and Criminal
Justice. New York: Delmar Cengage.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Terry v. Ohio [392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)]
