Introduction
The United States Constitution grants protection through constitutional rights to criminal cases. Such protections are found directly in the constitutions as many others are applied into the criminal settings through the amendments to the constitution. For example Article 1 of the constitution, Section 10 guards against “ex post facto” laws which are the law which protects an individual from incrimination in crimes committed in the past (Becker et al., 2018). However, most of the constitutional rights of criminal defendants are resultant from amendments made from the constitutions forming the basis of the defendant defense. For example, the 4th amendment rights which safeguard the rights of suspects from illegal search and seizure or the 5th amendments which constitute the due process, Miranda rights and others(Becker et al., 2018). Thus a discussion of a criminal case process from the events of arrest, requirements for search and seizure, plain view doctrine and suspect identification process as well as the fundamental constitutional rights of the accused during trial.
Elements of arrest
An analysis of Michael Cohen case who is the former lawyer to president trump outlines the criminal justice process from arrest to prosecution and the fundamental constitutional rights of Cohen for his arrest to trial and conviction. The four elements of arrest include a specific warrant of arrest supported by oath or affirmation, a probable cause leading to the actual arrest and detainment. In Michael Cohen case the four elements of arrest can be described as follows.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
An investigation was launched after stormy Daniel who is an adult film star offered information of her affair with president trump and claimed to have been paid by Cohen $130,000 to silence her claims.
Stormy Daniels claims led federal investigators to raid Cohen home and office in April 2017 which provided the case with evidence of criminal conduct on Cohen (Brown & Helderman, 2018). However, the four elements were specifically present for the matter as the specific warrant, oath and detainment and probable cause to investigate the alleged claim were presented on request of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation and were approved by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The investigators also monitored Cohen’s phones which was revealed in May 2017 leading to further implications on the case.
Four Requirements for Search and Seizure
The FBI raided Michael Cohen home, office and hotel room in search of non-disclosure agreements which related Cohen to Stormy Daniels whose real name is Stephanie Clifford and former Playboy model Karen McDougal. The pursuit for information was headed and organized by the FBI's public corruption unit. Searches and seizures are conducted by the police to help in obtaining evidence in a criminal investigation. Seizures pertain to actual possession of items of evidence by the authorities during the trial period. In Cohen’s case, the FBI searched of his home office and hotel room and seized information containing his payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels which were conducted just before the 2016 election (LaMance, 2018).
The report also revealed various communications between Cohen and President Trump. Therefore the search and seizure were found in violation of specific rules outlined in U.S. Attorneys’ Manual. Interpretation made showed that certain sections under the title “Searches of Premises of Subject Attorneys “offered details on six additional safeguards to ensure that the Justice Department is in line with the constitution and does not violate attorney-client privilege (Brown & Helderman, 2018). The section also outlined its application to subject attorneys as people who are suspects’ subjects or target of an investigation. Therefore the search and seizures on were conducted on the investigation in which the president was not a target or facing criminal charges.
Aspects of the Plain View Doctrine
The plain view doctrine is applied in criminal cases when a law enforcement officer seizes evidence of a crime from a suspect as a result of the evidence being in plain view. The doctrine was instituted and relieves law enforcement from observing the fourth amendment which protects against illegal searches and seizures without a warrant. Thus, the plain view doctrine allows law enforcement officers to seize evidence which is in plain view instead of stopping a legal search from securing a permit for another search. In Michael Cohen case, the plain view doctrine is not applicable.
Reports show that the raid to Cohen office though conducted using a warrant from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, it failed to follow other steps such as a demonstration to a federal magistrate of the probable cause and the need for a warrant instead of a subpoena (Cummings, 2018). The search lacked a taint team to examine the evidence before being handed to the prosecutors due to claims or concerns that Cohen might destroy evidence. In this case, the probable cause also failed to relate to the crime centered on Cohen and was linked to president Trump.
The Various Means of Identifying Suspects
There exist multiple ways of identifying suspects which can be at the scene or the development of suspects done soon after the crime has been committed. Suspects can be determined through drivers’ license, mobile identification technology, biometric identification, and field show up identification. Suspects not present for identification are developed by victims and witnesses, drawings and sketches, or profiles (Brown & Helderman, 2018). In the case, suspect identification was not a requirement for the case since the suspect was known to prosecutors and only investigations and evidence was required in the determination of the situation.
The fundamental constitutional rights of the accused during trial include the 4th Amendment rights which offer reasons to be free from illegal search and seizure and define other provisions on search warrants. The 5th Amendment rights consist of the due process rights, double jeopardy which is protection from a trial of the same crime twice as well as the right to be silent commonly known as the Miranda rights (LaMance, 2018). Under the 6th Amendment the right to be informed of the charges being brought and the punishments, the right to an impartial jury, powers to compel witnesses to appear in the court.
Others include the right to confront witnesses and cross-examine them at trial, right to a speedy trial and the right to assistance of counsel are observed. The 8th Amendment rights cover bail and limitations on sentencing, protecting against prohibitions on cruel and rare punishments (Becker et al., 2018). Lastly, the 14th Amendment rights observe several due process rights. Therefore, an accused during the trial can invoke various fundamental constitutional rights. In the case, Cohen cited the Fifth Amendment as he sought not to incriminate himself on the lawsuit filed by Stormy Daniels. Michael Cohen also found a pause in the civil proceedings where he faced civil liability and criminal prosecution with avoiding issuing a swearing testimony and provision of incriminating documents (Cummings, 2018). Despite the various efforts and protections in the constitutions, Cohen pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years for his crimes associated with president Trump.
Conclusion
The constitution provides rights to the accused to prevent illegal searches and seizures. The law enforcement has been granted a right to act under the plain view doctrine to spare them from pausing a legal search to secure a warrant. In criminal investigations, there are various ways to identify and develop suspects under the law. However, the law also contains fundamental constitutional rights which safeguards the rights of the accused in the trial against discrimination and unfair practice.
References
Brown, E., & Helderman, R. (2018, April 25). Michael Cohen to invoke Fifth Amendment right in Stormy Daniels case. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/04/09/to-search-michael-cohens-home-and-office-the-fbi-had-to-clear-a-higher-than-normal-bar/?utm_term=.0f0bf392eb22
Becker, R. F., Dutelle, A. W., & Roberts, B. W. (2018). Criminal investigation . Jones & Bartlett Learning .
Cummings, W. (2018, April 9). What about attorney-client privilege? How the FBI can obtain a warrant for Cohen's office. USA TODAY. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/09/michael-cohen-fbi-raid-attorney-client-privilege/501564002/
LaMance, K. (2018, April 11). Criminal Constitutional Rights. Retrieved from https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-constitutional-rights.html
