Abstract
The Constitution provides a set of rules that should be followed to have no problems with the law. In some cases, the police may act indecently, which affects the credibility of the evidence and violates the Fourth and/or the Fifth Amendments of the Constitution that are meant to protect individuals. Trying to help the attorney who asked me to conduct external research, I found two cases of the defendant claiming one’s rights were violated.
The Constitution provides a set of rules that should be followed to have no problems with the law. When the law is broken, one receives punishment, but it is critical to proving the guilt. In some cases, the police may act indecently, which affects the credibility of the evidence and violates the Fourth and/or the Fifth Amendments of the Constitution that are meant to protect individuals (Peak, 2012). Trying to help the attorney who asked me to conduct external research, I found two cases of the defendant claiming one’s rights were violated.
People v. Cherry is the case that happened in Colorado in 2005, in the framework of which the defendant stated that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated (People v. Cherry, 2005). The woman was stopped by a police officer when she was picking up the pedestrian, and marijuana was found in her car. Cherry believed that she was stopped illegally (just on the suspicion of criminal activity) while the officer claimed that she violated vehicle traffic. The court came up with the decision that the defendant was right. I believe that such a ruling was right because nothing can support the officer’s words and he even did not cite the offense, for which the car was stopped, which should have been done according to statute 42-4-805(7) (Vehicles and traffic, 2013).
The case Berghuis v. Thompkins deals with the violation of the Fifth Amendment. It happened in Michigan in 2010 (Berghuis v. Thompkins, 2010). Thompkins was said to be guilty of murder and assault but stated that his confession was not received in a legal way. Still, the court claimed that his claims are wrong and not supported by evidence. He did not use the right to remain silent and counsel. Moreover, the fact that Thompkins came to the police himself and confessed made officers believe that he did not want to keep silent. Finally, his dissatisfaction with the counsel’s performance had no proof. I totally agree with the court’s decision, because it is supported by law. Thompkins had an opportunity to inform the officer that he did not understand his rights and to say that he has nothing to do with the crime (“Miranda” rights, 2016). Still, the man just refused to interact, and his counsel cannot be blamed for this.
Mainly speaking about the Fourth Amendment strives to ensure that people’s rights will not be violated, the exceptions to the exclusionary rule are discussed. There are several points, but two of them are claimed to be the most critical ones:
- If the evidence was gained not only from the illegal search but also from another source that was not connected with it, the evidence could be used. For example, the police found a map of the place where marijuana was growing through the illegal search of the suspender’s house. They used the map and came to the field. The field of marijuana was used in the court as evidence because the field might have being found because it was not hidden good enough.
- If the police conducted an illegal search but were not aware of this fact, the evidence can be used in the court. For example, if the police were sure that there was no necessity to receive the warrant in a particular case or one gained the warrant that contains of a mistake, the evidence is likely to be allowed to be used in the court (The exclusionary rule, 2007).
References
Berghuis v. Thompkins. (2010).
“Miranda” rights. (2016).
Peak, K., (2012). Policing America: Challenges and best practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Web.
People v. Cherry. (2005).
The exclusionary rule. (2007).
Vehicles and traffic. (2013).