The United States' legal system is composed of statutory laws that are articulated in court judgments, state and federal constitutions, and case rules. Case law, which is developed and built in court judgments rather than in statutes, is the primary source of the basic principles and rights established in the American legal system. Judge-made rules are another name for case laws. These laws are resolutions that have been written to correlate to the codification of laws that are followed and recognized in a particular state. Del Carmen (2014) argued that judicial decision becomes binding on the court whenever a court resolves a legal verdict. The doctrine of stare decisis is the law that inferior court will reschedule when the matter is brought out in the future.
The second principle and sources of rights is the United States federal constitution that has Bill of Rights that preserves the self-governing power of a mainstream populace to abolish or alter the government and to ensure that citizens take part in the federal administration of justice. In essence, the high sanctuary of the U.S constitutional arrange is the Bill of Rights. The first ten alterations to the constitution of the U.S is the Bill of Rights that prevents federal abuse and to protect the ability of state institutions. Provisions of state constitutions must be consistent with federal constitution provisions (Del Carmen, 2014). With these said the basis of the legal system of United States has a political and iconic cultural history. Currently, the principles are based on the sovereignty of state and federal constitutions, and legislation is passed concerning the laws by the chosen teams.
Steps of the Criminal Justice Process
The criminal justice procedure begins when an act of crime comes to the concern of the law enforcers. The system of criminal justice can start with the process of detection and investigation that leads to the identification and charging of a suspected individual. An arrest can be made once the wrongdoing is determined (Finkelman, 2006). Finkelman further stated that “An arrest is justified when the police have probable cause that the person arrested has committed a crime.” An arrest can either be without or with a warrant of arrest. Law enforcement may apprehend the suspect once the warrant of arrest is issued. “An arrest without a warrant usually happens when a crime is committed in the presence of a police officer” (Del Carmen, 2014).
The next step is arraignment which is an early appearance before a court of judges to respond to the wrongdoing indictment or accusation. This step is critical to the procedure of law since it preserves the right of the offender to be informed of the cause and nature of the criminal accusation. Before questioning and during an arrest into the police custody, law enforcement can issue Miranda warnings. The defendant will be informed of his or her rights at the initials appearance before the judge or a magistrate.
Amendment Related to Arrest, Search and Seizures
The meticulous amendment associated with seizures, arrest, and search that was identified is the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S Constitution is one of the original 10 amendments called the Bill of Rights. This bill is regularly associated with the belief that the home of an individual is his castle. The Fourth Amendment comprises the meaning of seizure and search that demonstrates the expectation of privacy and distinguishes exclusionary rule. In this regard, law enforcement must have a warrant signed by the judge or magistrate to avoid constitutional problems. The signed authorization should be maintained by probable cause that explains the object, human being or place to be searched. Evidence that is acquired illegally is eliminated from being admitted at trial since it is a violation of The Fourth Amendment. Indubitably, the Fourth Amendment real meaning ensures that people possess a degree of privacy regarding invasive acts by the officials of the state. The Fourth Amendment in a democratic and free society continues to offer a rich appreciation, understanding, and history for the individual rights and the constitution in the U.S.
Concepts of Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion
The court determines the probable cause by testing a necessary subjective standard and reasonableness that falls between certainty and suspicion (Del Carmen, 2014). A warrant that is issued by a magistrate or arrest established by law enforcers through the knowledge of the officers determines probable cause. Finkelman (2006) claimed that the Fourth Amendment checks the authority of the government to intrude on personal security and privacy by needing that seizures and searches be supported by probable cause display. The idea of reasonable suspicion is evaluated by the individual observation of the officer that criminal activity occurred. Law enforcement can have an extent of attestation as a valid cause to legally take action when the probable cause is not established. Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are similar since they are both centered on the wholeness of the situation. Reasonable surmise can quickly changeover to probable cause (Del, 2017). At the same time, reasonable suspicion is based on consideration of specific factors that are involved in a given circumstance.
Examples in which Exclusionary Rule May not Apply
Exclusionary rule as defined by Del Carmen (2014) is the evidence acquired in infringement of the unreasonable search and seizure of the Fourth Amendment that is not permissible or acceptable in a criminal hearing to confirm guilt. Instances in which the exclusionary law is appropriate is the violation of the knock-and-announce and seizure or searches by private individuals. In searches or seizure by private individuals, information and data are collected with the assistance of private people may be utilized as evidence in the proceedings with limits that the enforcers of law did not encourage or contribute the search. With these said, the exclusionary rule may not apply if a search of a private individual turns to be the evidence of the crime. In such a case, the defendant may not be in a position to have the evidence suppressed (Del Carmen, 2014). The knock-and-announce law needs that the officers executing the arrest should provide occupants with a chance of admitting the police and complying with their needs before utilizing force to gain entry.
Case Law or Contemporary Issue Related to the Use of Force
The case law that is linked to the utilization of power is the One plus One theory. Siddle (1988) pioneered the study of continued existence stress and how it impacts law enforcement officers performance. The Pressure Point Control Tactics (PPCT) was a program that was taught at police academies to advocate for the use of one plus one theory at every level of force. The argument was established on the idea of totality and reasonableness of the situations. Siddle claimed that officers learn to be legal, tactical and moral and utilize one level force than the level used by the suspect. Plakas v. Drinski (1994) suggested a one case law that supports that the police officers have no constitutional responsibility to utilize less strength when lethal force is allowed. Indisputably, different techniques should be used to estimate and regulate the levels of resistance depending on the quantity of resistance the wrongdoer displays.
References
Del Carmen, R. V. (2014). Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice (9th ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage.
Del, C. (2017). Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice.
Finkelman, P. (2006). Encyclopedia of American civil liberties. New York, NY: Routledge.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Plakas v. Drinski, 19 F. 3d 1143 (7th Cir. 1994)
Siddle, B. K. (1988). Pressure point control tactics: Student manual. Millstadt, IL: PPCT Management Systems.
