The case before the court involved the incident of search with the intention to arrest without the availability of the arrest warrant.The case was about the search for the suspect in the police station after the arrest by the public.The case was also to determine the validity of the cellular phone recovered during the house search (Herman and Walter,2001).The case of arrestee was about how valid arrest can be conducted as extracted in the fourth amendments of the jurisdiction which allows the suspect to be arrested in the best possible criteria. It is successfully stated that the search of cellular phone with the suspect was properly done in the time of search at the police station after the administrative procedures have been conducted legalizing the process.The defendant was taken to the police station where his phone was trapped to be part of the evidence that the police had collected from him.The appellant denied to be part of the incident which he was being accused of, and immediately the cell phone contents was assessed in the message folder .The messages were believed to be associated with the ecstasy pills sold at $80. In the second interview the appellant accepted that he participated in the ecstasy business after the confrontation with the senior police officer.
The suspect was reigned in court for having been involved in the business restricted by the Government.The accused denied that he was guilty and, thereby, moved a motion that he was searched illegally.This led to the omission of the text messages and the responses he made about them were in the trial.The court rejected the motion and validated that the phone was looked into during the arrest of the appellant. The accused was then forced to accept that he was guilty and requested the court to forgive him of being involved in the sale of those drugs.He was then charged for three terms which forced him to appeal for acquittal that he was not lawfully arrested.
The arrest was legally executed by the police because the accused had the phone at the time of arrest where it was snatched from him for protection purposes on the side of the police.The senior officer also took an appropriate actions during the arrest when he read the text messages from the phone for the purpose of getting enough evidence.This was very legal from the fourth amendment of their supreme law .The presedent of US vs Edward properly indicates that the arrest was very legal and accepted the warrantless search of aperson and all the items which are found immediately around him are treated as clothing, therefore, the phone was treated as part of the appellant. It is believed that the cell phone was not separate from the person himself (Jefrey and Herold 2005). It was also very important to conduct the warrantless investigation for the appellant because the evidence could be found in the phone which was to indicate the validity of the wrong committed by the appellant.The arrest was very justifiable together with the phone since the content of the phone could be altered by anybody and, therefore, the required evidence would be distorted before the case ended.The fear of the loss of information in the phone influenced the police to take the phone immediately so that the evidence required can be extracted in time to avoid the loss due to power failure or any mishandling of the phone.
It was also very necessary to conduct the warranless search for the cellular phone because they could get relevant information regarding the arrest and, therefore, it is important to collect all the material around the suspect which could reveal evidence of crime. For the sake of privacy it would diminish immediately by virtue of the arrest and, therefore, the arrestee cannot claim that his privacy had been interfered with during the arrest when the cellular phone had been scrutinized to recover the evidence of crime.The police, however, had to read the text message in the phone since they believed that the information associated with the sale of ecstasy could be found in the text message (Herman and Walter,2001) The interpretation of Edward and Chadwick allows the police to perfom immediate search of the items of the arrestee such as wallets and other documents, which could contain important information leading to the prosecution of the suspect.The fact that these documents are used for the same purpose for the sake of evidence, the cellular phone can also be used for such a purpose to provide real evidence to validate the criminal offence of the arrestee.The police has a responsibility to hold these document if they are vulnerable for easy destruction to hide the evidence.
The police has been authorized to arrest the suspect without the issuance of the warrant, which is supported by the fourth amendment. It indicates that when an individual is lawfully reigned in court,the contemporaneous search is also authorized to be done without the submission of the warrant to recover the sharp weapons, which can be used to harm the police or be used to physically destroy the evidence.This is indicated by the case law of Preston vs United states 1964.
The supreme court made a reasonable decision on the passage of the case because the evidence which support the case must be provided by the police so the justice can be found in to act as future precedent.
The USA is the country which has the most developed legal system of handling disputes in the world. It is done through two mechanisms, which are mediation strategy and arbitration process. ADR was the first institution which was developed to help in the resolution of disputes in the USA. It was generated from England in the era of Norman Conquest and was to handle cases of individual wrongs which affect the citizens. It was composed by the most honorable males of the state in a court like setting to handle the disputes which mostly affected the country. The King also used these groups to cover part of the legal authority instead of following the legal king’s court. The King would respect the decision of the local and the layperson that were used to create the first arbitration.
The arbitration began in the US in the era of Dutch and British rule. During this period Pilgrim people passed that the lawyers of the land betrayed the harmony of Christians and, therefore, they decided that they were to use their own mediation to handle their conflicts (Jefrey and Herold 2005). The decision was not supported and, therefore, a body of respected males was allowed to determine claims, ascertain the wrong, check damages and lead in the reconciliation of the parties. The above kind of arbitration was the tradition of conflict resolution process in the early period.
Immediately after independence, when the new Government has cropped in, ADR became more effective in many areas of administration of justice. In 1790 it was used to solve the conflicts of competing claims of patent where the decision of the arbitration was binding. In 19th century ADR was legally institutionalized since it was recognized to be very important in the administration of justice within the country. In the beginning of 20th century the state developed strong interest in the system to be the best alternative for litigation. In 1920 three quarters of American states approved current arbitration statutes and Congress made federal law to legally authorize the use of arbitration in the States. Therefore the arbitration is improved in the US to the point that the court could enforce remedies passed by the arbitrators.
When proper statutes have been developed, the users of the law found it necessary to apply ADR in policy making without involving the government. In the early 1926 arbitration association was developed (AAA) to give proper guidelines and arbitration procedures to the parties of the team. The rules were developed on the best use of the arbitration as a means of delivering justice. The Government and its department recognized the importance of arbitration and they used the method in most of their programs. In 20th century arbitration flooded the whole country, where even the law firms recruited the retired arbitrators to mediate between individuals or businesses on their behalf (Jefrey and Herold 2005). In the long run ADR became a very important legal system for administering justice in the United States of America.
In the pretrial judgment the accused goes to the court before the magistrate for the initial visit to the court where the charges are mentioned for the first time for the accused or defendant. The magistrate also has the opportunity to evaluate the case for the purpose of arrest and to force the prosecutor to introduce other facts to reinforce the arrest statement. At this time the bail can also be set if it has not been previously determined which is granted on a standard grounds based on the charge on the crime.
The pretrial starts when the suspect is accused of misdemeanor, where the court arranges for the real trial of the case before them. In some instances the suspect is allowed to start a plea at the pretrial depending on the magnitude of the case or it can be arranged for a jury trial. The felony case with no “indiction”, the preliminary analysis of the case will follow immediately where the process of prosecution must convince the court that the said crime was committed by the accused. The witnesses are demanded and the evidences are also tabled before the court by the defendant. The suspect then testifies to the court that he is not the one who has committed the crime or he may decide to be silent in court. The satisfaction of the court upon the release of the evidence by the prosecutor qualifies for the approval of the felony case.
The police report copies are handed over to the defense by the prosecutor where he challenges the police report .The names and addresses of the witnesses are availed to the defense by the prosecutor. The documented statements made by the suspect are also supplied before the court. At this time the prosecutor has statutory authority to provide additional materials of evidence upon the demand of the suspect which are to be used by the court experts. The defendant has a legal opportunity to inform the prosecution on the plan to introduce alibi defense to the court. This is to create ample time for the prosecutor to have enough preparation for the defense.
Before trial the prosecutor or the accused can file legal motion with the court. The motions are either to suppress the evidences or to eliminate the case before the court. The suppression motion pleads for the eviction of the evidences on the basis of method of collection which defiles the rights of the accused. The limine motion, therefore, is to make the evidence limited for the trial before the court. The suspect can also demand for a dismiss motion when he was illegally arrested by the police where he defends himself that all the evidences found available because of arrest.
How it Works
Select the type of assignment
Provide explicit guidelines
Enjoy your free time while our professionals work on your project
Get an original work
The judges have a serious duty to sentence criminals who have been found guilty for the commitment of capital offences in the US. This is because they have to follow the prescribed guidelines imposed by the sentencing act passed in parliament (Thomas and Deborah, 2007). They have to consider the punishment therein, the magnitude of the offence and very many things required by the act. The judges must meet certain objectives when making a decision in the case before them, since their decision must be balanced for they have to put into accounts both deterrence and reforms. This is because deterrence can impose heavier punishment to the criminal while reform is too lenient and, therefore, the balance will give a reasonable sentence. Therefore, there is no sentence which can be said is precise but can be said to be appropriate when it is based within a limited range of sentencing act. The sentencing act, however, allows the judges to come up with different judgment found within a particular range, which is considered acceptable by the court to apply in the passage of a sentence.
The court of appeal has the power to interfere with the sentence if it has been passed in error in the subordinate courts (Epstein, 2007). The judges of appeal must properly scrutinize the sentence which has been passed properly before awarding an overruling sentence for the offence. The interference must only take place if the error found in the sentence is not too minor to let the sentence prevail, but it must be supported by legal evidence for the substitution to take place in the court of appeal. The errors which lead to substitution are the errors of law and facts which must also be argued based on the sentencing act. The public opinion also helps in the administration of justice since the judges have to consider their attitude towards the crime and their prevalence in the country. Therefore, judges have no mandate to administer any sentence according to their will but have to consider the public opinion regarding the crime. Their judgment is done lawfully but not to attract public demand (Epstein, 2007). The criticism cannot make the court dismiss the sentence if the court considered that its sentence is in accordance with the law. The appeal can add the magnitude of a sentence if the error has been made and can reduce it in case the error considered to have been committed is minor to substitute the case. The sentencing can only be upheld by the court of appeal when it is found to be outside the sentencing range but not on the criticism of the public.
The court has an obligation to administer good judgment for any case before them, since the decision of the superior court like court of appeal is binding on the subordinate courts. The case before them can be used as precedent for future cases of the court.