Sample Political Science Paper on Constitutional Rights in The State of California

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). 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 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 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 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.

 

 

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: A Reform Proposal. Buff. L., Rev.67, 1417.