Abstract
The criminal justice system in the United States provides Constitutional guarantees for all who are subject to the laws of the land. The three most controversial aspects of this system today are Search and Seizure, arrest, and interrogations. While these three aspects are the foundation of police action throughout the nation, there are several unresolved problems in how each of these processes is in use today. The presence of the law is not always the same as upholding it. The cases which made the case for the citizens are moving into obscurity with modern variations of the problems making their presence. The arrest policies of the police are in question. Their searching of vehicles on routine traffic stops are under heavy scrutiny from civil rights organizations and minorities. There is insufficient training on interrogation techniques and several of the leading investigators still use the flawed Reid Technique. The levels of accountability on law enforcement have to increase for citizens to feel safe. The validity of confessions obtained during interrogations should not be the only evidence used for convicting. If there is misconduct, the offending officers should face serious action. Taking away the right to be part of society unjustly equals the crime of kidnapping and the attempt to position an innocent person on death row is attempted murder.
Search and Seizure
The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution provides explicit protection against unnecessary police searches and detention of people. The Constitutional Amendments are the safeguards for citizens in the United States to avoid persecution by a Police State. When these Amendments came into existence, the United States had experience in dealing with the consequences of a Police State directed by King George of England. The objective was to ensure that future leaders of the nation do not misuse their authority. The history is important since the context is clear for interpretation. The relevance of application will depend on the context. Today, police and federal law enforcement agencies have enhanced their intelligence gathering techniques. However, they are all susceptible for errors.
There are three aspects of search and seizure which courts in the United States take into consideration in the present. The first aspect is the legality of the search or seizure. The police should have a warrant to conduct a search of a vehicle, property, or any personal belonging. In the absence of a warrant, they should have the consent of the owner. Consent given by any other source with access to the property is not acceptable. The consent should come from the owner or tenant of the property in question. Moreover, even when the police obtain a warrant, they have to specify a list of items which they hope to find at the scene of the search. If the police confiscate any item which does not feature in the warrant, the evidence will remain inadmissible.
In 1961, the case of Mapp V. Ohio created the basis of the exclusionary rule. This Supreme Court verdict overturned the conviction of a known racketeering subject since the police conducted an illegal search of the individual’s property. The police acted because of an anonymous tip and not any reliable or verifiable information. In addition, the police did not have a valid warrant or any vindictive evidence apart from those obtained during the questionable search. The Court ruled against the State and in favor of Mapp. This ruling created the scope for the defense teams to attack any search conducted by the police without considering the defendant’s Fourth Amendment Rights. All police action have to subject to the Constitutional Amendments (Sundby, 2009).
The exclusionary rule has exemptions to ensure that the police can enforce the law without too many problems in difficult cases. The police can conduct searches if they believe the person had committed a crime. For example, if the police stop a vehicle on a routine stop and smell marijuana, they can search the vehicle since there is probable cause for the indications of the commissioning of a crime. The second exemption is if the item of evidence is in plain view of the police officer. If a police officer spots a sawed-off shotgun inside a car, he can place the driver under arrest and confiscate the weapon. The third exemption is when the discovery of the evidence is inevitable. In the case of Nix v. Williams, the defendant led the police to the victim’s body. The police violated the Miranda rights of Williams and did not provide him an attorney when they began questioning him. While the court threw out the confessions and statements by the subject upholding that, the police violated Williams’ Fourth Amendment rights, the discovery of the victim’s body remained admissible. The ruling allowed Williams a new trial however, it did not exclude the victim’s body (McInnis, 2009).
The rule which the Supreme Court adds to strengthen the case for the defendants is the fruit of the poisonous tree. Any evidence obtained from an invalid search is inadmissible. The law extends to the items which the police find using the materials seized from that search. For example, if the police find a map leading to a victim gravesite during an illegal search, their findings at the gravesite will also become illegal. However, the law does allow exemptions to enable law enforcement to convict dangerous criminals. The exemptions include evidence from an unknown source outside the police department, the search was the outcome of good faith exercised by police officers, and if the evidence will be found at some stage by the police.
Search and seizure laws exist to serve the public trust. The citizens should feel the freedom which the founding fathers worked so hard to procure. The Fourth Amendment is the only safeguard illegal police action. The number of homicide cases where the searches become invalid is relatively less in comparison to nonviolent crime. While it is important to ensure the uploading of the law, it is equally important to keep dangerous criminals from misusing these provisions. After 9/11, the police have more rights to conduct searches and seizures. These types of developments are harmful to the society. In fact, police are responsible for killing more civilians in wrongful searches and illegal detentions. In recent years the incidents of police, killing unarmed civilians is on the rise. Perhaps it is time for the courts to increase the accountability on the constitutional safeguards and protect the interests of the public.
Arrest
Constitutional safeguards extend for anyone facing arrest in the United States. There are only three occasions when a police officer can place an individual under arrest. The first scenario is if the person is running away from a crime scene and fits the description of witnesses. The arrest is possible if the police officer spots the perpetrator at the crime scene. The second instance is when there is a warrant for an arrest for the individual. The third instance is when the police officer believes that the person is guilty of a criminal act due to probable cause (blood stained clothing, smell of narcotics, or behaving suspiciously when stopped routinely). Under no other circumstances can a police officer place anyone under arrest.
The first and most important notification after the arrest is the reading of the Miranda Rights. Police cases against defendants often crumble if the officer fails to Mirandize the suspect. The police have to read the rights at the time of the arrest and before the interrogation to create an airtight case. The admissions made by suspects are admissible in court only if the defendant knew of the Miranda Rights at the time of making the admissions. The court will not find suitable grounds to allow an admission if there is no proof that the defendant knew of his/her rights. The 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona created the need for police to safeguard themselves from further perverse defense strategies in court. The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution protects individuals from self-incrimination. However, without knowing the outcome, statements given to police find their way to the evidence. The Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to an attorney to every person placed under arrest (Moore, 2014).
Police officers have the tendency to question their suspects without the presence of an attorney (Williams V. Nix). The law in the United States provides more safeguards for arrested individuals than any other nation in the world. Hence, the job of building a case against such well-protected individuals is not always easy. The frustration of the police is prevalent in cases where they have circumstantial evidence which they are unable to use due to the safeguards. The weight of evidence in a case against the perpetrator often determines the conduct of the police and the prosecution. The number of wrongfully incarcerated in the United States is at the ratio of two for every ten incarcerations. With the largest prison population in the world, the ratio is startling.
At the time of an arrest, the defendant will have to undergo some basic procedures. The procurement of basic information, fingerprinting, taking photos, and participation in identification lineups are some of the basic actions. The police have to arraign the defendant within twenty-four hours of making the arrest. The defendant will spend time in the holding cell of the local police precinct. If for any reason the arrest is invalid, all the information procured face destruction. The police cannot preserve any individual’s information if there is no case against that person. Moreover, the police cannot use the information for establishing grounds for arrest in a different case. The procuring of other evidence from the subject such as a DNA test or providing a dental impression will require a warrant. The use of a polygraph test is common practice although it is inadmissible in court. The reason for this is due to the self-incriminatory nature of such evidence (Allen and Stein, 2013).
Interrogation
All arrested individuals face interrogation by police or other law enforcement officials. In recent years, police interrogation techniques are under scrutiny for legality. The police can lie to a suspect on the result of a DNA test, or of a possible witness to the crime to confront. However, they cannot force the suspect to cooperate. The interrogation sessions should allow sufficient breaks for the suspects to freshen themselves. The interrogation should have grounds on the facts of the case and the police interrogators cannot use any physical force to gain answers from the suspect. Police require physical evidence in cases and cannot hope to force a suspect into confessing only because of circumstantial evidence.
There are numerous complaints against the police for using the outdated Reid Technique in interrogations. In this process, the police first establish common grounds for questioning. They start with questions for which they already know the answers. This will help them establish the integrity of the suspect. The police will then ask questions which are generic and related to the victim(s) or the crime scene. The next step is to watch for body language and then keep repeating ‘I do not believe you’ whenever the suspect declares his/her innocence. Suspects can request their attorneys to be present for the interrogations and can evoke their right to be silent for the interrogation (Hirsch, 2014).
Invoking the right to remain silent is not a sign of guilt. Expressions of shock and disbelief can translate into silence also. The lack of objection does not necessarily mean the person is guilty. However, the Reid Technique impresses on the interrogator to push for answers and prolong the interrogation sessions. The general duration as per the law for interrogations is four hours per session. If the sessions extend beyond that or if the suspect did not have adequate breaks, any statements or confessions made by the suspect will become inadmissible if challenged in court. Interrogators prolong the sessions beyond seven hours at times. In high profile cases, suspects complained of interrogation sessions with a duration in excess of fourteen hours. Police interrogators also intimidate exhausted suspects by placing crime scene photos, and yelling at the suspect whenever there is a proclamation of innocence. While coercion is acceptable by law, procuring a confession through coercion is inadmissible (Hirsch, 2014).
There are changes required in the law on how confessions should find admissibility within the system. The case of the Norfolk Four is an example of how an improper police investigation can derail a case and destroy the lives of four people. In certain countries, the presence of a confession alone is insufficient grounds for conviction. In these cases, the confessions should have corroborative evidence. The presence of biological evidence on the scene, or the presence of exculpatory evidence should be factors to determine the outcome of the case. Unlike popular belief, a confession need not be an admission of guilt. There are several people who confess to crimes they have no idea about just to end the interrogation by police (Schneider, 2013).
The first case involving DNA evidence in England (and the world), the first person arrested was innocent, and yet he confessed to serial killing. A DNA dragnet proved he was innocent. In a televised interview, he states that he just wanted the interrogation to end. The police were using the Reid technique. The advent of DNA evidence in the United States has led to the exonerations of several hundred inmates in the last few decades alone. Improper interrogation techniques are still placing innocent people in prison. There has to be more than CCTV cameras to monitor these sessions and the accountability for the erring officer increased from disciplinary action to criminal misconduct.
References
Allen, R. J., and Stein, A. (2013). Evidence, probability, and the burden of proof. Arizona Law Review. 55 (3). Pp. 557-602.
Hirsch, A. (2014). Going to the Source: The “New” Reid Method and False Confessions. 11 (2). Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law. Pp. 803-826.
McInnis, T. N. (2009). Nix v. Williams and the inevitable discovery exception: creation of a legal safety net. Saint Louis University Public Law Review. 28 (2). Pp. 397-446.
Moore, L. (2014). Choose Your Own Path: A Defendant's Constitutional Right to Legal Representation. Touro Law Review. 29 (4). Pp. 1427-1452.
Schneider, S. (2013). When Innocent Defendants Falsely Confess: Analyzing the Ramifications of Entering Alford Pleas in the Context of the Burgeoning Innocence Movement. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 103 (1). Pp. 279-308.
Sundby, S. E. (2009). Mapp v. Ohio's Unsung Hero: The Suppression Hearing as Morality Play. Chicago-Kent Law Review. 85 (1). Pp. 255-276.
