Introduction
Every criminal justice system in the world is characterized by policy and procedure directives that ensures that all the actions and processes in this system are within the constitutional and legal confines. The policy and procedure are enacted to ensure that the constitutional rights of stakeholders are not infringed upon when these individuals are exposed to a particular criminal justice process. Unfortunately, there arises some situations in the course of disseminating justice where some actions cause massive legal disagreements. An individual who has been subjected to a particular process may claim that the process was unconstitutional or that his rights were violated in the course of this process. When such individuals decide to go to court, the court is forced to engage in a comprehensive process of interpreting the constitution to decide if the particular action or process was carried out within the confines of the constitution or the constitutional rights of the individual were violated.
One example of a process in the criminal justice system where the victim may raise the issue of rights violation is the process of conducting searches on inmates. Each prison or jail has it policy and procedure directive when it comes to inmate searches. However, an inmate may claim that a particular search violates his constitutional rights. An example is the Carter v. State of Maryland case. In this case, the defendant had been convicted of first-degree murder by the Circuit Court of Baltimore City (Carter v. State of Maryland, 2003). However, the convict took his case to the appellate court claiming that some of the material that played a huge part in his conviction had been acquired unconstitutionally and his rights had in fact been violated in the process.
According to the appellant, there was a time that he was to be transferred to a jail cell at Maryland Supermax prison from the Baltimore City Central Booking facility (Carter v. State of Maryland, 2003). During this process, an officer at the Booking facility discovered some seriously incriminating evidence when he conducted a random search on the appellant’s cell. In spite of the fact that the search was not particularly meant to find incriminating material, the material discovered was nevertheless forward to the detective in charge of the case. This material was then brought up during the trial and played a huge role in the ultimate conviction of the appellant (Carter v. State of Maryland, 2003).
However, the appellate court sided with the appellant who argued that his constitutional rights had been violated, and the conviction was overturned. The court called for a new trial (Carter v. State of Maryland, 2003).
However, going to the appellate court like Carter did might be an expensive venture and in addition, courts processes are usually very long. In such a case, the disagreeing parties may decide to sort out their differences without going to court. This may be done through consent decree. A consent decree refers to a settlement or an agreement between two parties where both pledge to resolve their dispute without any party admitting guilt (Detlefsen, 2014). This is a very advisable process because not only does it save time; it also saves money in terms of the cost that both parties would have accrued when pursuing a lengthy court process. A consent decree means that the parties to a certain case or dispute decide to withdraw the case from the court and solve their differences outside (Consent decrees Practical problems and legal dilemmas, 1987).
A consent decree usually articulates the things that each party guarantees to do, for instance one party nay decide to hand out money to the second party or the two might decide on a new and restructured mode of interaction if that was what was causing the initial conflict (Detlefsen, 2014). However, the court remains in charge of ensuring that all the contents of the proposed consent decree are observed and implemented by both parties.
This is what happened in the case of Jack Jones and Joe Johnson whose prison cell was exposed to a random search process which they felt violated their rights and therefore sued all the individuals involved in the search process. However, perhaps due to the recognition of the complexity of a court process, the two parties decided to make a consent decree where they agreed on several things.
A comprehensive analysis of the proposed consent decree between Jones/Johnson and the defendants shows that this decree addresses the issue at hand fully. This decree addresses issue fully because not only is a reprieve given to the “victims” but the issues of contention are also addressed. In terms of the reprieve, the two complainants are awarded damages in terms of money. Each receives $500 for the troubles that they went through. Therefore, it would be proper to say that the decree addresses the issue fully.
In addition, the proposed consent decree also addresses the Adelphi County Jail and Procedure Directive on inmate searches. To begin with, the policy and procedure directive can be considered to be the one that had stimulated all the problems involved in this case. Although the procedure and policy directive is constitutionally based, it is characterized by some elements of ambiguity. In the course of carrying out a search, an officer may come across a situation that he may not be sure on how to act. The action that the officer takes may later come to be interpreted by a court of law as an infringement of the constitutional rights of the inmate.
This is exactly what happened in this case. Under the Adelphi county jail policy and procedure for inmate searches, a search can only be conducted when it is aimed at identifying a certain type of contraband. However, the procedure does not mention what should happen if another material different from what the search was intended for is encountered. The officers conducting the search came across material that although unrelated to the search could have aided a lot in the conviction of the defendant.
The officers went ahead and confiscated the material and handed it to individuals who were part of the prosecution. This is why the complaints brought up the issue, and if it were subjected to a court process, there is a high likelihood that the court would have interpreted it as an infringement of the inmate’s rights. The proposed consent decree addresses the policy and procedure directive by not only reviewing it but also addressing some of its elements that were previously ambiguous and that might perhaps constituted violation of the 4th and the 6th Amendment right.
The proposed consent decree stipulate the times when the search procedure should be carried out, when it should be carried out and also touches on elements that would have been considered to be ambiguous in the previous policy and procedure directive. A perfect example is the new stipulation that requires the residents of the cell to be able to view the search process and to be placed in a cell that is adjacent to the one being searched. In the search conducted on Johnson and Jones’s cell, one of them did not even know that the search was underway as he was away playing basketball. In addition, the proposed consent decree changes the policy and procedure directive by stating that all confiscated material should be recorded in a property confiscation form that shall be part of a report handed to the Shift Commander. Therefore, the officers conducting the search are not allowed to take material confiscated to people such as prosecutors.
The proposed consent decree also partially addresses the appellate court decision. The appellate court decision acknowledged that the material confiscated under unclear means influenced the guilty verdict. Carter’s 6th Amendment rights were violated when material accidentally discovered by a government agent were used for beneficial purposes, in this case the prosecution of the accused person (Carter v. State of Maryland, 2003).
In regard to Jones and Johnson, the proposed consent decree addresses this issue. The government agent who has accidentally discovered material that might for example incriminate an inmate is not allowed to use this material immediately for beneficial purposes for instance by passing it on directly to prosecutors, detectives of case or even to the State Attorney like it happened in this case. Instead, any confiscated material is supposed to be handed to the Shift Commander, who then forwards it to the warden if he thinks that the contraband constitutes a crime. The warden then decides whether to forward the property confiscation report to the State Attorney.
Therefore, it appears that the proposed consent decree has taken into account the appellate court’s decision and has therefore included aspects that are supposed to ensure the constitutionality of all the issues that are associated with inmate searches in prisons. The proposed consent decrees can, therefore, be seen as attempting to ensure that no disagreements and conflict emerge in the Adelphi County Jail in the future when it comes to prison searches.
The proposed consent is relatively under-inclusive of the sued person’s opinion. The proposed consent decree does not mention much about the defendants who include the Adelphi County Jail, the jail warden Pete Peters, Dan Dawson who is the security chief, the shift commander and other persons who are involved with the case. In addition, the proposed decree seems to be more inclusive of the plaintiff’s affairs. The defendant's issues are not adequately addressed, In this case, the consent decree is over-inclusive of the plaintiff demands while the defendants concerns and demands have not been adequately addressed. Although the entire process is supposed to ensure that both parties are going to court by making a mutual consent, perhaps the defendant’s side could have prepared a consent decree that is more inclusive of their demands.
In conclusion, a consent decree refers to a settlement or agreement between two parties where both pledge to resolve their dispute without any party admitting guilt. As observed, this is a very advisable process because not only does it save time, it also saves money in term of the cost that both parties would have accrued when pursuing a lengthy court process. However, a good consent decree is the one that takes into account equal opinion of both parties therefore ensuring that it does not come across as under-inclusive or over-inclusive.
References
Deon Christopher Carter v. State of Maryland, No. 2396. (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland 2003).
Detlefsen, R. (2014). Government Consent Decrees and the Paradox of “Consent”: A Critical Case Study. Justice System Journal, 14-27.
Consent decrees: Practical problems and legal dilemmas. (1987). Chicago, Ill.: Students at the University of Chicago Law School.
