Criminal Prosecution Aspects - Book Report/Review Example

Book review In his book, “Criminal Procedures Law and Practice” Rolando defined the concept of probable cause and explains why it is important for police officers to understand it. The term “probable cause” is applied in criminal prosecution. It determines whether the actions of a police officer are lawful or not. Rolando (2009) argues that in the absence of probable cause, the evidence will not be permitted in the court. Every search and seizure is invalid if it does not have a probable cause. He states that the probable cause requires that the rights of people be safe in their effects, houses, or persons against unreasonable or irrational searches and seizures. He further states that no arrest warrant shall be issued in absence of a probable cause. Rolando (2009) also explains another term called reasonable suspicion, which permits police officers to stop and frisk a suspect, but reasonable suspicion alone cannot be used to justify an arrest. He states that probable cause goes beyond suspicion in that it exists when facts and circumstances are in line with the knowledge of the police officer and the information is credible and sufficient to warrant a person a cause in the consideration and belief that a felony has been or is being committed (Rolando 2009). Rolando argues that police officers need to get a probable cause because it has to be studied by a magistrate who determines if the “probable cause” warrants issuance of an arrest warrant. Rolando explains the application of the exclusionary rule in criminal law. He (2009) argues that this rule requires that evidence extracted by the government in disobedience of the fourth amendment ensures against unreasonable or irrational search and seizure is not applicable in a criminal trial to prove guilt of a person. He argues the function of the exclusionary rule is to deter police officers’ misconduct. Rolando argues that there are cases when the exclusionary rule cannot apply because in most cases, searches and seizures do not go into full trial. In such cases, the exclusionary rule does not apply. Case Briefs Draper v United States 358 U.S. 307 (1958) Case summary A narcotics officer without an arrest warrant from the court arrested Draper as he alighted from a train. The cause of Draper’s arrest relied on a tip from an informant, which was associated with a predictive explanation of Drapers’ return. Rule of law Plausible cause exists if the circumstances and facts of the case would cause a person to believe and consider that a felony had been committed. Facts of the case A narcotics officer got information from a credible source that Draper (petitioner) was engaging in drug business from his house. The informant told the officer that Drapper had traveled to Chicago to buy heroin. Further, the officer was enlightened on the day and date that Drapper would come back to Denver from Chicago, the color of the bag and clothes he would be putting on. Using this information, the officer waited for Draper at the Denver Station. When Drapper alighted from the train and fitted the description, the officer arrested him without an arrest warrant from the court. Issue Did the circumstances and facts provide the narcotics officer a probable or credible cause to consider that Draper (petitioner) had or was going to commit a felony? Can probable cause rely on tips? Illinois v Wardlow 528 U.S. 119 (2000) Case summary A person was arrested after escaping from police agents in a recognized narcotics place. Rule of law The police officer investigating the matter was justified in thinking that the person or suspect was engaging in felony, and thus, he was had the duty to inspect and examine the matter further. Case facts Wardlow (respondent) ran away from a place recognized for narcotics trafficking after realizing that police officers were around. The police officer caught the respondent and searched him where they found him a handgun. They arrested Mr. Wardlow. The court in Illinois declined to grant Mr. Wardlow an action to suppress because the gun recovered from him was during a warranted and lawful stop and search. Mr. Wardlow was convicted of possessing a gun unlawful with an intention to commit a felony. The appellate court in Illinois reversed the decision on the basis that the arresting officer lacked a credible and rational suspicion to justify a stop and frisk; therefore, the gun should have been suppressed. The court found out that an area prone to crime does not offer a reasonable suspicion. Issue Did the stop and frisk by the officers disobey the constitution? Rochin v California 342 U.S. 165 (1952) Case summary Rochin, an appellant argued that the “Due Process Clause” had been disobeyed when police officers coerced him to vomit the pills he had taken. Rule of law The police officer has no authority to get evidence from inside an individual’s body by vigor or force. Case facts Three police officers stormed Rochin’s (appellant) house and saw pills or capsules on a stool. When they asked who owned the pills, Mr. Rochin swallowed them. They tried to get the capsules from Rochin’s mouth but failed. They took him to hospital where Rochin’s stomach was pumped in contrary to his desire to make him vomit. They retrieved two pills or capsules from the vomit. Issue Can police officers extract or extort evidence from inside an individual’s body? Nix v Williams 467 US 431 (1984) Case summary Police officers arrested Williams for the killing of a 10-year girl whose body he threw of along a road. Police officers started to look for the body of the murdered girl. During the search, in a reaction to the police officers’ help, Williams wrote statements in absence of his attorney, which assisted the search officers to discover the body. Williams understood his “Miranda Rights” after the police officers arrested him. Rule of law This case describes the unavoidable discovery dogma which states that if evidence will be unavoidably discovered, the criteria in which is achieved is not significant. Case facts Williams (defendant) was arrested. He read his Miranda rights for the killing of the girl after he directed the police officers where the girl’s body was disposed. The statements that Williams were not permitted as evidence against him during the trial. The court argued that even if Williams had failed to make statements with police officers, the girl’s would have been discovered within a certain time, and that the evidence could still be applied in the case. Issue Evidence that leads to arrest should not be permitted at trial because it was incorrectly extracted. Illinois v Gates 462 US 213 (1983) Case summary Police officers got a letter describing particular details regarding the defendant (Gates) plans to smuggle drugs to Illinois from Florida. When the details matched with the defendant’s behaviors, police got a search warrant and discovered contrabands such as weapons and drugs in the defendant’s house and cell phone. Rule of law If anonymous tip is matched with real police discoveries, the police officers need to use the totality of circumstances method to get a credible or probable cause. The fourth amendment demands that no more than a discovery by an issuing judge or magistrate that there is concrete evidence that if a search is conducted, it will find evidence of criminal activity. Case facts The police got a detailed tip from anonymous person that Gates and other defendants were engaging in drug business. The police officers using the tip observed defendants behaviors, which were similar with the tip. Based on the tip and defendants matching actions, the police took a search warrant. After searching the defendants, the police discovered contrabands such as weapons and drugs in the defendant’s cell phone and house. Issue The magistrate can issue a search warrant based on reasonable anonymous tip in the absence of indicia of the knowledge of the informer. The message in the tip is matched with the police discoveries. Reference Carmen, R. (2009). Criminal procedure: Law practice, 8th Ed. New York, NY: Wardsworth Publishing. Read More