From the report on the State v. McAlister case, it is evident that the defendant is guilty of drug trafficking as per his prior confession. However, the prosecution team does not have cogent evidence to convict the suspect of murder. If the jury convicts the defendant on all allegations which are leveled against him, the accused may face a severe sentence. Typically, the volume of drug transactions that are evident in the encrypted file may attract life imprisonment for McAlister. As such, it is prudent to accept the plea of 30 to 40 years imprisonment. On the other hand, if the defendant’s legal team succeeds in suppressing the evidence on the encrypted file, the defendant’s charges will attract a lenient sentence that is less than 30 years imprisonment.
The police conduct violated McAlister’s constitutional rights. According to the 4th amendment of the United States Constitution on the Bill of Rights, the police officers must have a search warrant that authorizes them to access your private property ( Clancy, 2008) . The constitution, therefore, protects the rights of the defendant’s privacy. It is unlawful for the government to forcefully access Jose’s property without his consent. Although the state needed the computer file to access the drug trafficking evidence, the rights of the defendant were violated. The search warranty that was used by the police was intended for the Computer geek who was trafficking pornography.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The police had a legal warrant to search a geek’s house that was suspected of selling child pornographic materials. The suspect, in this case, was a computer geek and the neighbor to McAlister. The police were authorized to scrutinize the geek’s house and PC’s. However, the police officers entered and searched the wrong homestead. Instead of searching the geek’s home, the investigators went to Jose’s house. At the defendant’s home, the police officers accidentally encountered Jose’s computer. After seizing the laptop, the investigators realize that they searched the wrong apartment. However, the police found an encrypted file titled “19$trans.” The law enforcement agency believed that the encrypted file contained important information about the defendant’s drug deals. Therefore, the police illegally seized the defendant’s laptop without a valid search warrant in his home.
The police officers were later granted the warrant to access the computer. However, the government was unable to decrypt the file without the assistance of the defendant. The defendant was thus compelled to provide the password for the data. The defendant revealed to his legal team that the data contained the spreadsheet for tracking the sales made from selling the illegal drugs as well as the names of individual who still owed the gang some cash. The information from the file is detrimental to the defendant as it may complicate the case. The prosecution may take advantage of the sales volume in the record to prefer life imprisonment charges against the suspect.
According to the fifth amendment of the human rights bill on the US constitution, a suspect cannot be coerced to engage in an activity that will lead to self-incrimination. The constitution protects the defendant against engaging in any activity that will assist the prosecution team in their argument. Additionally, the amendment prohibits convicting an individual twice for the same offence. However, the police officers arrested the defendant based on the crimes that were already punished. As such, the police officers committed a double jeopardy by arresting Jose for the second time over the same allegations ( Griswold, 1955).
Therefore, the prosecution team demands the violation of the 5th amendment. The suspect cannot be coerced to provide evidence in their file that is then used to convict them ( Dellinger, 1972) . The prosecution should thus use other means of gaining access to the file instead of asking the suspect to provide the password. Typically, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution team ( Dellinger, 1972) . McAlister should not facilitate his incrimination by giving criminal evidence against himself. The government has already seized his laptop illegally ( Magliocca, 2018) . As such, it is the responsibility of the state to prove that the content in the encrypted file contains criminal evidence. The police also violated the constitutional provision by arresting McAlister over the offenses that were committed in a different jurisdiction. The arrest warrant was out of date, and the suspect had already pleaded guilty. Jose had already been punished for the offense in which the police were arresting him. As such, the police officers were engaging in double jeopardy by arresting Jose over the crimes that he had already paid for.
The sixth amendment provides the right of a speedy and public trial to the accused person ( Magliocca, 2018) . The amendment protects the accused people from being mistreated in custody before the final judgment is made. Typically, every suspect is deemed innocent unless proven guilty. As such, it is important for the criminal justice stakeholders to fast track the case and makes their final ruling within the shortest time possible. Therefore, an extension of 60 days in custody as claimed by the prosecution team is illegal ( Magliocca, 2018).
Therefore, it is illegal for the prosecution team to extend the incarceration time during the hearing of the case. Although the police officers and the prosecution team violated some of the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment of the constitutional provisions, the violations are likely to be suppressed by the court due to the type of evidence that is already in the court’s custody ( Magliocca, 2018) . Therefore, the defendant should accept the plea of between 30 to 40 years imprisonment.
References
Clancy, T. K. (2008). The Fourth Amendment: Its History and Interpretation . Carolina Academic Press.
Dellinger, W. E. (1972). Of Rights and Remedies: The Constitution as a Sword. Harvard Law Review , 1532-1564.
Griswold, E. N. (1955). The 5th amendment today: three speeches . Harvard University Press.
Magliocca, G. N. (2018). The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights Became the Bill of Rights . Oxford University Press.
