Argument of Constitutional Framers

Argument of Constitutional Framers

A major problem that has been encountered time and again within our legal system regards the enforcement of the constitutional limits and other statutes set to check the powers and balances of government operations. These statutes and limits are meant to establish whether the government has overstepped its’ lawful boundaries as to be determined by the judiciary, a fact prescribed in the “Marbury v. Madison” case of 1972. In many of such procedures, especially criminal procedure, where the Supreme Court is expected to determine the legality or illegality of the government’s actions, its’ been found to have complicated roots. Such is true even in this case, “Smith v. the United States,” set before the court today. However, despite the questions surrounding these cases, particularly cases of searches and seizures, are usually complex, the basic regulation concerning such cases is solely found in the Fourth Amendments of our constitution. Acceding to LII (017), this amendment protects people from violation of their privacy based on unreasonable or baseless police or law enforcement searches and seizures, stating that such a process shall be done in light of a warrant.

The words as described in the fourth amendment may look clear straight forward, but they have brought forth a series or endless debate regarding the issue. Somehow, it fails to address the key issues encountered during regular police work such as question about the obtaining of the warrant before search and seizure concerning the suspect getting rid of the evidence while the police try to get a warrant. Or if such a procedure might give the suspect a chance to flee. Also, what if the officer or victim sees the evidence by chance in the suspect’s house without having to search, what then? Such is the arising questions that have been left unanswered by the amendment that faces the court today.

Argument of Constitutional Framers

Before concluding this case, this court must look at various tenets among them being the underpinnings of the constitution and the aims of the constitution framers while drafting the constitution. Thus it occurred to this court that while the framer of the constitution was drafting, they were not only guided by the need for democracy and freedom but also by the fact that total freedom (granted to police) would lead to chaos. Therefore, they strived to design a document that would create a government that had a balance between order and liberty. The constitution framers had a belief that “people are naturally free and equal,” though the freedom gave rise to inequality and then chaos. However, they had the belief that they can be moral and rational. As such, the framers argued that people had rights despite the state of nature that encompass the right to property, liberty, and life. The Fourth Amendment was developed to ensure that people acquire freedom from illegal police searches and seizures (LII, 2017). Summing up their argument, they argued that the functions of the government formed by the people were to protect their natural rights, and they willfully gave up their freedom to form governments founded on the social contract between the governed and the government. Therefore, this created a binding agreement between the government and its citizens that both parties have an obligation to honor.

Perspective from Social Forces

When taking social forces into perspective, the court would be wrong to accept goods acquired through illegal police warrants as evidence. Although people may not condone Mr. Smith’s action (if at all he stole goods from his neighbor), they would not like the way the police arrested him. If the police would be allowed to act like that, the public would detest the law on that because it would turn everything to chaos. Since people are supposed to abide by the laws, the government is also required to play its part and not meddle on people’s property without the necessary procedures.

Past Judgments by U.S. Supreme Court

Also, in its decision, this court needs to reflect on the past similar cases as this where it has to balance between the need for law enforcement and the right to privacy. However, this court feels that such a case is not unique. A good example is perhaps the ruling in the case of 1959 in “Elkins v. United States,” where the court ruled that the evidence found by law enforcers during search and seizure may have violated the immunity of the defendant under the 4th amendment and thus is considered inadmissible. Likewise, in the Mapp v. Ohio case of 1961, the court made a substantive expansion of Elkin’s ruling, which further grounded the “exclusionary rule” within the constitution by finding the evidence submitted therein as inadmissible based on the violations of the 4th amendment.

Noteworthy, was the case of Frank v. Maryland, where the city officer upon complaints of rats by neighbors’, knocked Mrs. Maryland’s door and not finding an answer he let himself inside where he found evidence of rodent infestation. In the appellate court, the judge denied Mr. Frank’s permission to further inspection in Maryland’s basement on the fact that the evidence provided was obtained under violation of the appellant’s 4th amendment right. Likewise, in Weeks v. the United States, the court ruled that the obtaining of evidence from Week’s house was in direct violation of his constitutional rights. Common with these cases was that the courts based their ruling upon the circumstances that led to the obtaining of the evidence concerning the 4th amendment right.

Smith v. the United States Case

Thus, also it is the understanding of this court that in this case, Smith v. the United States, the arrest of Mr. Smith followed an allegation that he broke into his neighbors’ house. The same neighbor, who forcefully entered into Mr. Smith’s property where he saw the stolen goods, currently uses the evidence before this court. He then called the police who decided to seize and search Mr. Smith’s house without a warrant from the court in the fear that he can destroy the evidence if given time. Mr. Smith was then charged with possession of stolen goods and burglary, a charge that was upheld by the states and federal court.

Conclusion

Undeniably, tempting as it may be to uphold the ruling of the states and federal court by finding the defendant guilty, this court is strongly persuaded that the defendant’s constitutional rights under the 4th amendment were substantially violated. Ideally, the police, upon relying on information obtained unlawfully, they went ahead to search and seize Mr. Smith’s property without a warrant. Though their reasons were valid, this court feels that the police had more options that would have led to lawfully arrest while also securing the evidence. For example, the police had the option of leaving one or two officers to guard Mr. Smith’s house while the other one goes to obtain a warrant. For the fact that the police did not exhaust their options and took matters to their hand without a judges warrant or notification, this court allows Mr. Smith his freedom and direct that the evidence be returned to Mr. Smith until such time when the police will obtain a warrant to search and seize his home.