Article III of the US constitution emphasizes on the right to fair trial, with the sixth amendment elaborating further of the need for the accused in all criminal prosecutions to enjoy the right to fast and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and locality in which the crime was committed. However, American criminal trials have been punctuated with adversarial excesses in both the pretrial and trial phases such judicial passivism and lawyer dominance, emphasis on battle rather than truth, over-reliance on the lay jury, formal and complex rules of evidence and procedure, and excessive lawyer advocacy all of which contribute to limiting the rights of the accused to a fair trial (Kessel, 1991). Similar sentiments were echoed in Powell (1965) that the conflict between rights of free press and fair trial in the pretrial stage has the potential to prejudice the accused right to fair and impartial trial. The need for solutions is paramount including application of necessary safeguards. The objective of this paper is to examine some of the aspects during the pretrial and trial phases of criminal proceedings necessary for protection of the constitutional rights of the accused in ensuring a fair and impartial trial.
Elements of an Arrest
Gaines and Miller (2008) defined an arrest as “the taking into custody of a citizen for the purpose of detaining them on a criminal charge” (p. 167). An arrest involves deprivation of liberty, hence deserves a full range of constitutional protections for the accused. It is important to understand that some arrests are conducted after the issuance of arrest warrant, but such authorization for detainment is not mandatory. A law enforcement officer has the jurisdiction to take a person into legal custody under a probable cause, in cases where there is belief of commission of a crime. However, it is also important to understand that the state of being under arrest is dependent on both the law enforcement officer and the perception of the suspect. For this reason, there are four identified elements that must be present for an arrest to take place (Gaines & Miller, 2008).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The intent – This subjective element of arrest applies to the law enforcer and the suspect alike. In the former’s case, a police officer must show that they intended to take the suspect into custody; and in the case of the later, the suspect must show the resolve forebear a given act that consummates a crime verbally or through their actions. Otherwise, there would be no arrest.
The authority – Law enforcement officers are authorized by state laws to detain and place suspects under custody. However, the extent of the authority varies from state to another with some officers authorized to make arrests whenever they witness a crime and other only when on duty.
Seizure or detention – This important element of arrest is considered to occur the moment the suspect submits to the control of the arresting officer willingly of forcibly.
The understanding – The suspect must understand that they are under arrest and being taken into custody through communication from the officer using words such as “you are now under arrest,” or being forcibly subdued, handcuffed, and placed in a police vehicle. However, this element does not apply in cases where the suspect is intoxicated or unconscious.
Requirements for Search and Seizure with a Warrant
An arrest can be defined by a number of developments search as a suspect being held by one police officer while another goes to a particular location to retrieve evidence, or the suspect and the police officer jointly going to the location. According to LaFave (2004) the practices are not inherently unreasonable and have been upheld by courts during trials based on the proposition of the need to prevent the suspect from fleeing. However, arguments have been raised in regards to the issue of consent and whether the arrestee may prevent the officer from taking such steps. Whether an officer is to search a person or property with the objective to discover a contraband or other evidence for use in criminal prosecution; or seizes a person or property or removes a concealed deadly weapon from them; it is important to understand that the Fourth Amendment guarantees citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures and government agents, in most cases must have a warrant to conduct such searches and seizures on people and property (LaFave, 2004; Gaines & Miller, 2008). Such a search and seizure warrant must have the following requirements:
It must be filed in good faith by the law enforcement officer to eliminate cases of victimization of innocent citizens or accomplishing personal scores
The warrant must be an outcome of reliable information and demonstrate probable cause to search or seize a person of property to avoid unnecessary altercations and possible lawsuits.
A neutral and detached magistrate must issue the warrant to prevent cases of collusion between law enforces and court officials.
The warrant must specific the location to be searched or items to be seized to prevent officers from intruding the privacy of the suspects.
Aspects of the Plain View Doctrine
In some instances, law enforcement officers as excluded from using warrants when conducting searches and seizures. One search law that gives police officers authority to exercise their powers without a warrant is the Plain View Doctrine. Under the Plain View Doctrine, police officers are exempted from requiring warrants when searching or seizing items thee observe and immediately recognize as contraband or evidence as long as they are lawfully present during observation. The doctrine is regularly used by government officers while screening people and property at airports. According to American Judicature, US Department of Justice, American Judges Association et al. , the use of plain view doctrine is intended to ensure police convenience rather than achieving exigency of circumstance. Therefore, the doctrine dictates the presence of three conditions that must be fulfilled before seizure without warrant in plain view:
The officer must be lawfully present at the location where the contraband or evidence can be viewed plainly
The officer must have a lawful authority to access to the evidence and
The incriminating aspects of the contraband or evidence must be immediately apparent.
Seizure can only be made if the officer has a probable cause to believe the object in question is a contraband or evidence of crime. It is not necessary to move the objects for a better view; hence aspects of plain feel, plain smell, and plain hearing have been included in the extended sub-doctrines of the plain view doctrine. The ambiguity surrounding the doctrine of plain view has made it a law by general usage.
Comparing and Contrasting Means of Arresting Suspects
In the US law enforcement officers are limited in the circumstances in which they can make arrests to include instances where they personally witnessed a crime; there is probable cause to believe the suspect committed a crime; or the officer has an arrest warrant issued by a court magistrate. The law requires police officers to be accountable, but the encounter between the police and suspect dictates the means employed by the police to make an arrest. According to Worden, Shepard, and Mastrofski (1996), the most consistently replicated and widely accepted theory about police behavior is that the law enforcers tend to sanction suspects who demonstrate disrespectful demeanor towards the police. This implies that the behavior of the suspect determines whether the police make a peaceful or forceful arrest.
There is variation in jurisdiction in regards to rules that an officer must do when making an arrest. When an arrest happens because the person believes they are not free to leave, the police need not to use force, handcuffs, or place the suspect in a police vehicle. However, these tactics are often employed by the police for self-protection and restraining the suspect. People are often advised to restrain from arguing with the police or resisting arrest under which an officer can make a peaceful arrest. However, in other instances, the suspect may be unwilling to be arrested necessitating the use of force by the police. Police officers are prohibited from using excessive force or treating the arrestee cruelly, but in circumstance where the suspect is violent, police are allowed to use force in subduing them hence resulting to a forceful arrest.
Summary of Basic Constitutional Rights of the Accused during Trial
The Bill of Rights is heralded by Americans as an enumeration of their most cherished freedoms (Epstein & Walk, 2012). However, the importance attached to enjoyment of such rights during criminal proceedings in evidence by the fact that the first eight amendments guaranteed rights for the criminally accused. The framers of the constitution recognized the need to protect the accused from unreasonable searches and seizures, and unfair and partial trial without the benefit of public scrutiny. Epstein and Walk (2012) and Gaines and Miller (2008) posited that constitutional rights of the accused are contained in the sixth amendment and include:
The right to a speedy trial
The right to public trial
The right to a lawyer
The right to an impartial jury
The right to know the identity of the accuser
The right to know the nature of charges and evidence preferred against them
References
American Judicature Soc, United States of America, US Dept of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Admin, United States of America, American Judges Assoc, ... & United States of America. (n.d). Plain view doctrine. Retrieved 08/06/2017 from: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=80200.
Epstein, L., & Walk, T. G. (2012). Constitutional Law: Rights . Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Gaines, L. K., & Miller, R. L. (2008). Criminal justice in action . Ontario: Nelson Education.
Kessel, G. V. (1991). Adversary excesses in the American criminal trial. Notre Dame L. Rev. , 67 , 403-465.
LaFave, W. R. (2004). Search and seizure: a treatise on the Fourth Amendment (Vol. 4). Minnesota: West Group Publishing.
Powell Jr, L. F. (1965). The Right to a Fair Trial. American Bar Association Journal , 534-538.
Worden, R. E., Shepard, R. L., & Mastrofski, S. D. (1996). On the meaning and measurement of suspects' demeanor toward the police: A comment on “Demeanor and Arrest”. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 33 (3), 324-332.
