Police are the central force that protects citizens of every state and guarantees that their rights and lives are secured. For this reason, the given social institution is provided with extreme authority to find lawbreakers and provide them with fair punishment. However, at the same time, police officers should also actively considering the existing legislation; otherwise, their actions can be considered illegal. The U.S. Constitution and criminal code limit officers power to ensure that no abuse of power will be observed. In such a way, trying to find a lawbreaker, an officer should act regarding the law. The given case could be investigated to understand the importance of the issue and acts that could be applied.
Officer Jones used a local trash collectors services with the primary aim to find some pieces of evidence that might be useful when indicating narcotics use. The Fourth Constitutional amendment could be applied to the case. It provides people with the freedom from unreasonable search, seizures, arrests, and interventions (Delegates of the Constitutional Convention, 2005). In such a way, no person could be arrested at his/her home without clear reasons. However, officer Jones has not violated this amendment. The fact is that the trash gathered by collectors could be provided to the police as pieces of evidence (Weaver, Burkoff, & Hancock, 2014). Additionally, as long as the defendant has already given the trash to the collector, it lost its privacy and became unprotected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. In other words, officer Jones used a valid way to obtain the trash needed to prove illegal actions as he turned to the collector who possessed the power to help him.
Moreover, the officers actions could be analyzed regarding the plain view doctrine. This one provides an opportunity to collect pieces of evidence without a warrant if they are found in plain view during a lawful observation (Weaver et al., 2014). In such a way, Jones adhered to this doctrine as the trash provided by the collector was in his plain view, and the officer was able to use it even not having the warrant. Moreover, there is an open-fields doctrine that could be applied to the case. It states that a warrantless search of the area outside an owners property does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the USA (Weaver at al., 2014). The officer excluded the defendants yard and house from his search and obtained the trash with the help of the collector. In other words, his actions were legal.
In such a way, despite all probable rejections and alternative perspectives on this issue, officer Jones actions can be considered legal, and they do not violate the Constitution of the USA or any other doctrine that is used when the police look for pieces of evidence or during other criminal procedures. In accordance with the current legal environment, all things or facts that are acquired in the way that violates the existing law cannot be used to prove the guilt of a person (Weaver at al., 2014). However, correctly knowing this aspect, officer Jones acted with respect for the Constitution of the USA and the Fourth Amendment. He asked the collector to help him and bring the needed pieces of evidence. In such a way, Jones managed to arrest the defendant and observe all existing laws and regulations.
References
Delegates of the Constitutional Convention. (2005). The Constitution of the United States. New York, NY: National Center for Constitutional Studies.
Weaver, R., Burkoff, J., & Hancock, C. (2014). Criminal law: A contemporary approach, 2d (interactive casebook series). New York, NY: West Academic Publishing.