The Prosecutor and Defendant And Their Scope of Arguments

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects American citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. The judge has the sole responsibility of commissioning the search at the property of the suspect. The police must prove that there is a probable cause to justify the process to get the search warrant from a judge. The police are only allowed to search for the specification described in the warrant; unless there is a reasonable suspicion of other objects or persons. In this case, it was illegal for the police to have accessed the property without a warrant. They had not proved the intention of a probable cause to search. However, other controversies arise due to the consent of the wife. The wife consented to the search, implying that the defendant allowed the search to proceed. Since there was no search warrant, there is the possibility that the evidence cannot be presented in the court. Both the prosecutor and defendant have their scope of arguments. There are exceptions when the search warrant is not required. First, the search can be reasonable under the prevailing circumstances. In this case, the wife consented to the searches; the wife voluntarily agreed to have the police search. The consent of the wife implied that the defendant agreed to have the process conducted. However, another issue arises on whoever consented to the search. The case states that the wife is the one who consented to the search. The controversy arises on if the wife of the suspect had the authority to consent to the search. The defendant could argue that the wife had no authority to give consent. In some cases, court has ruled that any of the persons dwelling in the same place can give consent. Otherwise, the defendant would argue that there was no consent and the evidence should not be presented. Out of the two arguments, the evidence cannot be submitted due to lack of search warrant and use of the consent of a person with no authority to consent.