First Amendment in the US Modern Justice System Essay

Exclusively available on IvyPanda Available only on IvyPanda

The American judiciary system has undergone a series of amendments to what is currently. Reflectively, amendments are as a result of the evaluation of existing laws and bills in line with the dynamics in contemporary society. The process of amendment is often characterized by a series of evaluation and re-evaluation of the judicial system, judgment benchmarks, and human rights issues. Specifically, amendments have been made on laws and bills that directly influence the rights of the citizens of America (Patterson, 2009).

We will write a custom essay on your topic a custom Essay on First Amendment in the US Modern Justice System
808 writers online

In order to understand the contributions brought by the First Amendment, it is critical to evaluate the rights and responsibilities that the Constitution gives American citizens. Thus, this reflective treatise attempts to explicitly identify three cases that are related to the First Amendment of the American judicial laws and expound on development surrounding each case. Notwithstanding, the paper resonates on the extent of protection a constitution assures citizens of America in their quest for justice. In addition, the paper outlines the reason why each case was important and had to be heard and interpreted by the Supreme Court. Also, the paper discusses the significance of the verdict passed by the Supreme Court in each case and their relevance or influence on the rights of American citizens today.

The first case is that of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole v. Scott case of 1988 483 U.S 868, which was heard in the Supreme Court of Justice in Alabama (Tale, Mersky, & Hartman, 2004). The case dwelled on seizure and search without a warrant, especially when the law enforcement agency viewed this as the best alternative for state security. In the ruling, the Supreme Court’s description of privacy was a formal entity only when the same does not infringe on the rights of others. Privacy was described as a totality when it is parallel to the existing ordinary code of conduct and property ownership that exists within the sub-branch of probation. However, when all the laid down protocols are not followed, then the search or seizer of property becomes illegal.

In the ruling, the Supreme Court issued a protection verdict to the accused and concluded that the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole did not follow protocol during their unlawful searching and seizure of private property that belonged to Scott. Besides, the evidence obtained during the search was declared obsolete since it was described as exclusionary. Further, the Supreme Court offered ruling baring authorities from assembling evidence from such unlawful search alongside lawfully obtained evidence. Basing their premise of judgment on abuse of the right to privacy as defined in the First Amendment, the court declared evidence against Scott as abuse of his rights to privacy and protection from unlawful interference by the authority (Tale, Mersky, & Hartman, 2004). This is because the authority had no permission and could not prove that Scott posed a security threat to his neighbors or America at large.

This ruling is still relevant in the contemporary American law system, especially in the dispensation of justice both at the district level and in the Supreme Court. This ruling was described by human rights activists as a breakthrough from the high handedness and unethical intrusion of privacy (Patterson, 2009). Though the case was closed over two decades ago, the verdict principle remains the same, and the law clearly defines cases when probation authority or police may intrude on the privacy of an American without a court order. At present, a search or an arrest without a warrant is minimal since the court will demand substantial evidence as a proof of the authorities’ claim on security or agency. In addition, the citizens of America have been made aware of the boundaries of privacy and are empowered by this judgment to challenge a search or seizer they perceive unfair or unlawful. When faced with such a case, the accuser may challenge the authorities on the basis of infringed rights to privacy as incorporated in the First Amendment (Patterson, 2009).

Another notable case is that of the United States v. Knights (00-1260) 534 U.S. 112 (2001) 219 F.3d 1138, where the Supreme Court issued a verdict in favor of the United States’ Department of probation (Tale, Mersky, & Hartman, 2004). The case was forwarded by the accuser, Knights, who had issues with the response and action taken by the probation department who got access to his private property, a house without a documented proof or permission of intent. Knights claimed that this seriously jeopardizes his right to own private property and his own privacy within the enclosure of his compound.

Besides, he claimed that the officers forcefully made into his house despite his spirited resistance and threat of pressing charges. On the other hand, the law enforcing agent claimed that he was very suspicious of a sinister activity in the house of the accuser and actually confirmed his suspicion upon forceful entry since Mr. Knights refused to cooperate and was abusive. This case drew heated debate, and since a state organ was the accused, it was forwarded to the Supreme Court for further guidance. In the final verdict, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state organ. The verdict passing was based on “the premise of substantial suspicion element for search without permission from the person as entrenched in the First Amendment” (Tale, Mersky, & Hartman, 2004). In its ruling, the Supreme Court introduced the concept of intractable to mean reasonable and informed suspicion that may lead to actual proof, especially when the suspected party is within the premises to be searched. Since Mr. Night was inside his property at the time of the search, the state agency was relieved by the court on the foundation of acting within his duty parameters (Stone, Seidman, & Sunstein, 2008).

1 hour!
The minimum time our certified writers need to deliver a 100% original paper

As a matter of fact, the state agency found the accuser in possession of illegal drugs and money he could not account for. In what was described as a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court, the concept of balancing contradicting issues and suspicion was reaffirmed, and a quantifiable relationship adopted to weigh a lawful search without a documented warrant or evidence (Patterson, 2009). The court ruled that freedom and right to privacy and private property ownership is operational and sufficient enough to press charges only when the same is aligned positively to the national security policy (Stone, Seidman, & Sunstein, 2008). This case is relevant in the current American society as it empowers law enforcement agencies to act on instinct as long as the suspected party is within the premise and observes all the activities undertaken by the visiting state agency. Americans are aware of random searches and are responsive since this policy is only legal when the same is done in the presence of both parties.

Besides the above two cases is the Simon Glik, Plaintiff, Appellee,v. John Cunniffe, in his individual capacity; Peter J. Savalis, in his individual capacity; Jerome Hall-Brewster, in his individual capacity; City Of Boston, Defendants, Appellants, before the Supreme Court of Boston over right of privacy of (2010) which stressed on” the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest stage in litigation” (Tale, Mersky, & Hartman, 2004). The accuser Mr. Simon pressed charges against three officers who arrested him for taking video of them applying excessive force when making an arrest of a suspect in the streets of Boston. The officers arrested Simon on the ground of ‘inter alia’ and practicing unlawful recording of audio and video against Massachusetts’ statute on a wiretap. Simon’s phone was confiscated as the evidence, and he was arrested. Besides, he was accused of disturbance.

In the Supreme Court ruling, the court noted that “the officers were unhappy they were being recorded during an arrest… does not make a lawful exercise of a First Amendment right a crime” (Stone, Seidman, & Sunstein, 2008). Besides, no quantifiable cause was identified that could substantiate the claims presented by the officers. Despite filing an internal complaint with the Boston police department, there was no investigation done on the same. Among the accuser’s claims are the “the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983” (Tale, Mersky, & Hartman, 2004) for violations found in the First Amendment. In the final verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that qualified immunity seize to exist when the same infringes the rights of the public who are permitted by the law to take a picture and video recording of police officers on duty. Besides, “an affirmative result from such an act does not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed… the constitutional question beyond debate” (Tale, Mersky, & Hartman, 2004).

This ruling was termed a landmark in monitoring police activities and the protection of citizens who record their unethical behavior in public. Besides, the ruling issued a clear signal to the law enforcing agency to observe conduct and protocol in executing duty (Patterson, 2009). Specifically, Mr. Simon won the case against the three officers whose act was condemned by the court. Since the case involved a series of conflicting clauses in the First Amendment, it was necessary for the Supreme Court to offer legal leadership and verdict as it drew heated debate. This judgment has liberated the citizens of America to know the boundaries of their rights with wiretap equipment and responsible filming, knowing that the law is clear and defines the periphery of using wiretap equipment in public (Stone, Seidman, & Sunstein, 2008).

Conclusively, the Supreme Court of America has issued a landmark ruling on sensitive issues that directly affect the right of privacy and private property ownership. Besides, it has endeavored to offer a legal interpretation of various acts and clauses in the First Amendments aimed at offering an inclusive judicial system for the citizens of America (Patterson, 2009). The decisions made by the Supreme Court on these cases have continued to influence laws on privacy, private property, search and seizure, and use of wiretap media.

References

Patterson, T. E. (2009). The American Democracy (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Stone, G., Seidman, L., & Sunstein, C. (2008). The First Amendment. Indiana: Aspen Publishers.

Remember! This is just a sample
You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers

Tale, C., Mersky, R., & Hartman, G. (2004). Landmark Supreme Court Cases. New York: Infobase Publishing.

Print
Need an custom research paper on First Amendment in the US Modern Justice System written from scratch by a professional specifically for you?
808 writers online
Cite This paper
Select a referencing style:

Reference

IvyPanda. (2020, May 27). First Amendment in the US Modern Justice System. https://ivypanda.com/essays/first-amendment-in-modern-us-justice/

Work Cited

"First Amendment in the US Modern Justice System." IvyPanda, 27 May 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/first-amendment-in-modern-us-justice/.

References

IvyPanda. (2020) 'First Amendment in the US Modern Justice System'. 27 May.

References

IvyPanda. 2020. "First Amendment in the US Modern Justice System." May 27, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/first-amendment-in-modern-us-justice/.

1. IvyPanda. "First Amendment in the US Modern Justice System." May 27, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/first-amendment-in-modern-us-justice/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "First Amendment in the US Modern Justice System." May 27, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/first-amendment-in-modern-us-justice/.

Powered by CiteTotal, the best bibliography maker
If you are the copyright owner of this paper and no longer wish to have your work published on IvyPanda. Request the removal
More related papers
Cite
Print
1 / 1