Criminology Paper in Letter Form to a Supreme Court Judge

Criminology Paper in Letter Form to a Supreme Court Judge

Dear Judge Gresh,

I am going to try to influence your decision on the appeal by demonstrating some of the procedures and processes that will have to be in-order for this case to press further. Then bring to light the laws set on and around our constitution in particular the fourth amendment. We need to discuss how the charges brought forth were done in an unlawfully manner and how they violate the law and jurisdictions that bind our law enforcement agencies. Also as a close friend, I will give you my honest opinion on the appeal, if I were in your shoes as one of the appellate judge presiding over this case I would uphold the first judgment handed down in this matter.
The court’s decision on this case was decided by using proper procedures to make sure that no citizen’s rights would be violated. The fourth amendment offers every citizen of the United States of America the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures (Mount, 2011). In this case the police officers may have had good intentions in mind but there are rules and laws set in place to protect citizens from their rights to be violated.
Internally I fought over the logistics of the case. I must say that this case is somewhat similar to Chimel v. California. In this case Chimel was issued an arrest warrant and upon being served such warrant the police conducted a search of his residence. They found what they believed to be evidence they thought they could use to prosecute Chimel. The court found this warrantless search of his residence as a violation of the 4th amendment in a majority vote (Oyez, 2011).
In this case again, a warrantless search was conducted, now in the case that you will be evaluating for appeal the issue was not that there was an illegal search but more of a warrantless entry. If Chimel v. California doesn’t serve as a proper example then take into consideration the Emergency Aid Doctrine. This doctrine is part of the community caretaking function and must fill three requirements for it to properly and legally overrule the 4th amendment. 1st, the main purpose for the search cannot be to either the intention to arrest or collect evidence. 2nd, the area or place to be search must fall under reasonable or otherwise probable cause. 3rd, in order for this doctrine to be accurate law enforcement must have “reasonable grounds,” they must have this in order to believe that there is imminent danger and their assistance is needed for protection of someone’s life or their property (Update, 2008). This doctrine is what must be used under law enforcement procedures. They should have asked to come in and have a bit more patience. The proper procedures to avoid a mistrial or removal of evidence must be followed. In this case the police officers did not follow proper procedure and that is the reason why we are here at the appeal process now.
Once more, in the case in front of you the warrantless entry was not legalized by the emergency aid doctrine. At least it wasn’t found that way by the trial judge who ruled out the evidence found as it was believed it was obtained through improper means. With the previous judge I must agree, and although I cannot tell you how to do your job I am simply trying to influence your decision through means of examples in law that have been around for about half a century now. These laws, amendments, codes, etc. are here for a reason, and we must make proper use of them so that we may maintain order in our society. We know delinquents will not obey the law or follow proper protocol; this is what must separate us from them.

References

Update, Legal. (2008). Welfare checks. Retrieved from http://www.legalupdate.com/4th/835
Mount, S. (2011). Constitutional topic: 4th amendment. Retrieved June 13th, 2011 from http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html
Oyez, Inc. (2011, June 13). Chimel v. california, 395 u.s. 752 (1969). Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_770