Burglary Case

Introduction

In this case, Mr. Smith was arrested for burglary he committed at his next door neighbor’s apartment in the state of California. With the suspicion that Mr. Smith stole his things, the neighbor took it upon himself to enter the home of Mr. Smith without a warrant or an officer present. The neighbor saw his property and immediately contacted the authorities. The officers arrested Mr. Smith again without a warrant because they were afraid that if they waited any longer that Mr. Smith will get rid of the evidence. Now the question is why Mr. Smith was denied of his equal protection under the law. This essay will discuss any philosophical underpinning that might influence the court’s ruling. Including any social force(s) that could be useful to guide the decision. Along with other major philosophical arguments of the United States Supreme Court in cases such as Weeks v. United States and Mapp v. Ohio.

Constitution

The Constitution provisions many rights for those who have been suspected of a crime. The Farmers feared that the government could act any way that it wishes by simply saying that an individual was a suspect criminal. Most of the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights such as habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, are created to ensure that those who are accused of a crime are assured of those rights. A search warrant allows people to search you, your home, your car, your place of business, or any other specified area suspected of containing evidence of illegal activity. Search warrants allows the authorities to seize the evidence. “Unless a search is (1) authorized by your consent, (2) incident to a lawful arrest, or (3) under some other recognized expectation, it must be executed pursuant to a valid search warrant” (Understanding California Search Warrants, 2015). However, there are many restrictions on when and how officers may execute California search warrants and violation of these rules can result in a reduction or dismissal of criminal charges. Police officers do not need a search warrant to seize evidence or contraband that is in plain view. Even though the plain view doctrine is limited, officers must have a probable cause to believe that those items in plain view are contraband before they seize or search them. In this case, the neighbor has already spotted his property and located officers to prove that is was there.