Criminal procedure

Student’s name

Institution affiliation

Procedural law sets appropriate law to be followed by the law agents in enforcing the law. Procedural rights are fruits of due process in the fifth and fourteenth amendments. The due process sets rules and regulations that prevent the state from depriving an individual of their rights and freedoms. Hence, due process at its core preserves the one’s liberty from the state at the expense of the crime committed and always presumes that someone is innocent. On the other hand, the crime control ideal is chiefly concerned with decreasing crime and maintaining social order. It stresses the practice of discretion and police mighty as a method of rapidly solving crimes, and always works on the assumption that the suspect is often guilty.

Criminal procedure law is obtained from the state constitutions, federal and state statutes, the fourteenth amendment, the US constitution, bill of rights, and the US supreme court decisions. Some of the current interpretations of due process have been determined by the Supreme Court. The search and seizure law is governed in large part by the fourth amendment. The amendment provides residents the right to arbitrary searches and seizures. The amendment has two parts. The warrant clause states that warrants are issued when there is probable cause. The warrant must describe who and where the search is to be conducted. Probable cause is founded on proofs and circumstances within the agents’ understanding that reveal there is a fair probability that a crime has been committed. The fourth amendment prohibits unwarranted arrests. The law provides for situations where an officer can make arrests. For example, persons may be arrested without a warrant when there is probable cause or when there is an arrest warrant. The police are permitted to use appropriate force in apprehending a suspect. The law also guides the conduct of officers in arresting private dwellings. It states that the officers must knock and announce. It also stipulates the exceptions to these rules.

There are various types of seizures. The police may question anyone in public. The stop and frisk form involves the officer stopping someone temporarily and asking them questions and, in some cases patting them down to search their outer clothing. The police are allowed to frisk someone who they suspect to be carrying a weapon for their protection. The other type is vehicle stops, where the police just require the least suspicion of criminal activity. A search is an inspection of an individual’s house, effects, or being himself or herself. The fourth amendment only applies to areas where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The supreme court decisions provide for warrantless for appropriate situations. The warrant permits the officer to conduct full research on the suspect and in the lunge area. Police can seek consent from an individual without any probable cause. It must, however, be voluntary and intelligent. It is also restricted to both time and space and also necessitates appropriate power to consent. Vehicles do not inherently require a search permit. The fourth amendment does not relate to the plain view dogma. The doctrine limits the seizures of items to those that they can see. The use of other senses to make seizures requires the issuance of a warrant. The other areas where the law makes exceptions are open fields and abandoned property.

The sixth amendment provides individuals with the right to the assistance of legal counsel. This concurs with the requirements of the bill of rights that necessitate courts to provide defendants a fair hearing. The fifth and sixth amendments standardize circumstances that include cross-examination of criminal defendants and identification processes. They emphasize that a person should not be compelled to incriminate themselves. The Miranda decision applies in custody and interrogations. However, there are several exceptions to the Miranda rules like routine traffic stops and sobriety checkpoints. The confrontation clause allows the accused to be confronted with the witnesses against him or her. Ex parte absent witness accounts are prohibited in criminal trials. The sixth amendment offers the defendant the right to have an obligatory procedure of attaining witnesses in their favor. The accused may therein compel favorable people to testify on their behalf. The exclusionary law consigns that any proof acquired by the administration in abuse of the fourth amendment against irrational searches and seizures is inacceptable in a criminal trial. The rule is hotly debated on the basis that it throws away good evidence. It is a battle of the due process model versus the crime control model.

References

Book review