Introduction
Mr. Smith’s arrest on the charges of possession of stolen property and burglary
occurred even in the absence of a search warrant. Despite the violation of James Smith’s
constitutional rights, various social, philosophical, and prior similar cases support the Court’s
ruling to uphold the case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Mopp v. Ohio decision reached
in 1961, for instance, raised the unresolved matter of exercising the exclusionary rule
between the state and federal governments. Nonetheless, no mandate remains in the abidance
of specific regulations and their interpretations of federal courts. The Weeks v. United States
proceedings also revealed that exclusionary rule remained variant without any specific
validity concerning the Court’s ruling, As such, the attainment of evidence even without a
warrant remains valid if the act offers proper information for the case.
Prior Decisions
Search incidences following arrests, according to the American and English typical
law fall under fundamental constitutional rights. The ever increasing debate concerning
justifications behind search incidents lacking warranties as in cases like the Weeks v. the
United States and People v. Chiagles shed light on previous similar circumstances to that
experienced by Smith. The murderer's garments that contain blood stains, for instance, can
act as a past event promoting search of a suspect in the process of developing the case, even
in the absence of the warrant (Deahl, 2018). As such, the lack of a search warrant in Smith's
case would prove unlawful if the seizure remained represented as a trespass with unknown
intentions behind the accusation or arrest. However, Smith's neighbor discovered the stolen
property in the house that offered a physical dominion in the form of evidence that converted
the warrantless search into a lawful act promoting the development of a case (Deahl, 2018).
3
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
As such, the search on James Smith represented as part of the arrest as it provided additional
material and progress to the case.
Sekhon (2018) uses the Katz v. United States case to explain the Supreme Court's
process to elaborate on the role of the warrant preference in solving several seizures and
cases. The Supreme Court explains that reasonable search warrants' accommodation includes
those in the absence of actual permits as long as plausible and established expectations
remain clear through the search (Sekhon, 2018). As such, a search undertaken in the absence
of a warrant that breeds useful evidence for various cases remains acceptable among cases by
the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, the search and arrest of Smith even before getting a
warranty remains under reasonable stipulations followed by the U.S. Constitution.
Accountability for searches among target suspects, for instance, according to magisterial
ideals like those developed by Justice Jackson in the Katz v. the United States, remain
detached and neutral to the leading cause of the search (Sekhon, 2018). The main reason
prompting the search on Smith’s apartment remained the stolen property. As such, the
process promoted the case's credibility while establishing facts.
Philosophical Underpinnings Influencing the Court’s Ruling
Fallon (2019) notes that tort law developed by judges remains effective as it solves
constitutional violations and official wrongdoings like the act of performing a search without
a warrant under specific conditions. The Marbury v. Madison case undertaken by the
Supreme Court highlighted remedies for the violation of different legal rights. The lawsuit
argued based on offering a solution or solid argument and basis for the breach of
constitutional rights (Fallon, 2019). The accommodation of such flexibility, Marbury’s
dictum, continues to represent the ideal form of law regarding American jurisprudence in its
constitution, especially in solving wrongdoing cases. The core principle offered through
Marbury’s plays an essential role in developing remedies concerning the constitutional
4
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
violation, like the appliance of similar law bodies to individuals and the government (Sekhon,
2018). Assaults and unwarranted searches like that experienced by Smith represent tort laws
that, despite their violation concerning constitutional rights, promote the effectiveness and
reasonability of the entire Court system (Sekhon, 2018). The issuance of warrants for every
seizure and search might remain unreasonable for the Court as it may lead to narrow progress
of the operative standards behind the ruling among cases. The police arrested Smith on the
grounds of concerns that the suspect would hide or discard the evidence before the arrival of
the warranty. As such, the police protected valuable evidence while maintaining a close eye
on the suspect, even without the search warrant.
Sekhon (2018) offers the example of the Bivens case where Bivens went through an
unconstitutional seizure and search, like Smith, despite the fact ending with no legal actions
to the officials. Biven remained detained only for a while that did not allow for the search of
damages from the government like sovereign immunity concerning the unlawful search. The
Framers of the Constitution ensured that any unconstitutional action expressed by officials
remained under judgment through the existent system. However, government officials' lack
of specific government immunities or accountability in individual responsibilities and powers
demotes the practice in different cases, especially those of wrongful information of seized
evidence (Sekhon, 2018). In the case of Smith, nonetheless, the seizure led to the growth of
the case, showing that unconstitutional seizures and searches prove useful and applicable in
different situations.
The General Oil Co. v. Crain case also saw the Supreme Court use the collection of
unconstitutional tax in building on the situation. The Court realized that the matter contained
limited judicial remedy except for the use of an injunction (Sekhon, 2018). In such a case,
constitutional violations like the use of high penalties directed to the non-compliance of the
defendant remain essential in recovering unpaid payments by the defendant in the presence of
5
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
limited options. The seizure on Smith continued critical to the maintenance of the evidence of
the stolen property, with rising concerns among the police concerning the evidence's future
availability state. Violating the constitution to perform the search without warrants at such a
period proved useful in addressing the case to the Court of Appeal.
Social Factors Affecting the Ruling
The enforcement of warranties remains essential in addressing any disparities like
race and class through the criminal justice system. The 'arrest feedback,' according to Sekhon
(2018), promotes the development of new cases and progress throughout the criminal justice
system. Insights into factors like demographics and concepts promoting illegal activities also
surface through the issuance and use of warrants. Increased social awareness concerning
criminal cases assists self-supporting info and rationale, even among a population, in solving
crime cases. Smith's neighbor took on the action to search the apartment to find any pre-
existing evidence concerning the stolen property as enforced by previous cases concerning
search warrants. The new information discovered in the process promoted the development of
the case, accomplishing the role of the criminal justice system to the nation (Summers, 2019).
In the aspect of magisterial ideal, also, the essential sectors of a case involving law
enforcement involve the incidents preceding the actual warrant (Sekhon, 2018). Evidence
collected before the issuance of order through society, for instance, acts as the building block
to the case. As such, the seizure and search incidents at Smith's represent an essential role in
building the case.
Conclusion
The seizure and search conducted in James Smith's apartment before issuing a warrant by the
police and the neighbor represent constitutional violations that present some magisterial
ideals in solving different cases. The cases Weeks v. the United States and Mapp v. Ohio
represent examples where the Supreme Court violated the defendants’ constitutional rights
6
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
with reasonable cause. The police arrest on Smith, thus, remained constitutional as the
defendant possessed stolen property. Therefore, the use of the magisterial ideal helps the
judge in realizing actual evidence and finding proper execution in cases despite the lack of
search warrants.
7
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
References
Deahl, J. (2018). Debunking Pre-Arrest Incident Searches. Calif. L. Rev., 106, 1061.
Fallon Jr, R. H. (2019). Bidding Farewell to Constitutional Torts. Calif. L. Rev., 107, 933.
Sekhon, N. (2018). Dangerous Warrants. Wash. L. Rev., 93, 967.
Summers, M. A. (2019). Lawful Searches Incident to Unlawful Arrests: