Until someone is proven guilty, law enforcement officers should always honor their right to due process. Any suspect is entitled to the fullest consideration under the Constitution. According to the 4th Amendment, which shields everyone from cruel treatment in a judicial case, the suspects' rights were violated. Although the suspect was rightfully apprehended, it is illegal to force him to confess to the crime and refuse him the right to legal counsel (see "Search and Seizure and the Fourth Amendment," nd). The fourth amendment which the police violated exists in America to protect people regarding safety inspections, search warrants, stop-and-frisk, wiretaps, and other surveillance exercises.
The case also relates to the violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The law protects the offenders from answering queries alone unless in the presence of a grand jury (Rowden, 2013). It is the part of Bill of Rights protecting the suspects from answering questions which they feel their responses might cause them to look guilty. According to the Fifth Amendment, the defendants are not entitled to be their witnesses during their trials (Rowden, 2013). Therefore, the interrogators violated the Fifth Amendment by denying the suspect a lawyer and again forcing him to confess and admit the mistake.
Again, police violated Edwards Rule by denying the suspect of his right to counsel. This rule can as well protect the offender from being answerable to questions that are not favorable to him. By definition, Edwards Rule states that “When a suspect requests an attorney in the process of interrogation, police should no longer interrogate him further until a jury is provided” (Call, 2010). The Maryland v. Shatzer case presents a similar scenario to what the grocery suspect experienced.
Therefore, confessing and admitting the mistake is not permissible in a court of law because of the violation of the constitutional rights when interrogating the suspect. Failure to provide an attorney is not eligible since it is a breach of the Fifth Amendment as well as Edwards Rule.
References
Call, J. (2010). The Edwards Rule after a Break in Custody: Maryland v. Shatzer. Virginia Police Bulletin. Retrieved 24 August 2017, from www.radford.edu/content/va-chiefs/home/july-2010/edwards-rule.html
Rowden, M. (2013). Constitutional Law: Fifth Amendment Due Process: Vague and Indefinite Statute: Right to Trial on Question of Illegal Presence in the United States. Michigan Law Review, 51(3), 437.
"Search and Seizure and the Fourth Amendment” (nd). FindLaw. Retrieved March 3, 2016, from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/search-and-seizure-and-the-fourth-amendment.html
