The active practice of law requires a credible understanding of interpreting the various provisions of the law. The execution of law continues to evolve with the various amendments that define the relevant contexts of reliable interpretation of the law. The contemporary constitutional dispensation demands careful adherence to various constitutional processes applicable in filing a court case. The constitutional interpretations should follow the due process of law. Besides, the right to protection of from incriminating disclosure, right to access advocate services, and protection from unusual punishment and capital punishment are the important protocol to observe while gathering evidence. The prosecution should ensure that the due process of the law is observed during the gathering of evidence to be used in a court of law. The credibility of a case before a court of law is determined by the quality of evidence used to support the case and the legality of the procedures used in gathering the evidence.
Evaluation of the Legality of the Evidence Obtained from Dufus House Given That the Tracker Used Was Installed Illegally
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The evidence gathered by the prosecution from Dufu’s home could be overwhelming but does not meet the legal requirements for validating evidence. The evidence loses credibility because of the illegality occurred in the process of deriving the evidence. Officer Do-Right and officer Justice installed a tracker on Dripster's blazer without a legal warrant. The act of installing a tracker on the vehicle without a warrant violet the spellings of the 4th amendment (Schreiber, 2020). The provisions of the constitution in the 4th amendment discredit any evidence obtained without observance of due process of law. For instance, in the United States vs. Ross case of 1982, the court of appeal discredited the overwhelming evidence that linked Ross with narcotics (Miranda da, 2020). The court of appeal nullified the evidence because the evidence was gathered through the unwarranted seizure. Similarly, the evidence gathered from Dufu’s home fails to satisfy this because the methodology used in its acquisition does not follow the due process of law.
Moreover, the use of the bloodhound device to harness evidence from Dufu's house violates the 4th amendments. Officer Do-Right and officer Justice do not follow the stipulated protocol of acquiring a search warrant before searching. Besides, the act of the two officers’ further violets the right of privacy of occupants of the house (Brookman & Maguire, E2019). The court should consider the actions of the two officers, illegal and unprofessional. Despite the overwhelming nature of the evidence provided, the illegality involved in the process of evidence jeopardizes its effectiveness in this case.
Determination on Suppression of All Evidence Because the Magistrate's Warranty Was in Guided by Illegally Acquired Information
Officer Do-Right and Justice violated the 4th amendment in gathering the information that they used in compelling the magistrate to issue the warrant. The two officers used unwarranted bloodhound devices to detect the presence of cocaine pastry, methamphetamine, and marijuana. It is upon this information that the magistrate issued a search warrant to the two officers. Consider the Mapp vs. Ohio case of 1961 whereby the Supreme Court failed to acknowledge the evidence provided by Ohio State because its acquisition was made through a seizure whose warranty was issued based on information that sullied the 4th modification of the constitution (Petersmann, 2020). The court should, therefore, suppress the evidence derived from Dufu's house because the information that informed the issuance of the warranty of search violates the provisions of the 4th amendment.
Ruling on the Suppression of the Ammunition Evidence Obtained from Stupido's Car
The gun presented before the Supreme Court was literally acquired from Dripster's car. However, the process of acquiring the weapon from Dripster's car violates the provisions of the 4th amendment. The two officers did not have a warrant to search the Blazer driven by Dripster. The lack of a search warrant makes the gun and irrelevant evidence in the Dummy vs. Dripster case. Consider the case of R. VS Genest of 1989 (Garrett, 2020). The Canadian Supreme Court discredited the gun evidence used against Genest because the acquisition of the gun did not observe the due process of the law. Similarly, this Supreme Court should not have trust in evidence acquired through unconstitutional approaches.
Examination to Upturn Dummy's Sentence for Marijuana Possession
The existing deal between Dummy and the officers who interrogated him is not valid. The officers did not recite the Miranda cautions to the suspect. The Miranda warnings are to remind the suspect of his right of protection from incriminating disclosure and his freedom to conduct a lawyer (Holper, 2020). The actions of the officers not to recite the Miranda cautions to the suspect waters down any bidding agreement with Dummy. The actions of Dummy in co-operating with the officers could be out of coercion. The prosecution can't validate the agreement by Dummy and officer Justice because the suspect was not informed of his right to remain silent.
The Suppression of Stupido's Admission Because He Was Denied Access to A Lawyer
The disclosure made by Stupido is not applicable in this Supreme Court. The suspect was made to confess in the absence of his lawyer. The officers who interrogated Stupido did not respect his right to access an attorney. The actions of officer Do-right and officer Justice suggest that Stupido was coerced to make the decision. This phenomenon violates the spellings of the Miranda rights (Garrett, 2020). The Supreme Court should, therefore, suppress the confession made by Stupido as relevant evidence in the Dummy vs Stupido case.
Analysis of Dripster's Capital Punishment for Firing and Paralyzing an Innocent
Dripster never intended to shoot the minor. Dripster reacted to Stupido's provocations, but the bullet strayed to the innocent. The death sentence on Dripster is a desecration of the eighth revision of the constitution. The verdict is not sensitive to the fact that the innocent was not a target of Dripster. The provisions of the eighth clause protect convicted persons from undue punishment (Janssen, 2019). The actions of Dripster in the shootout scene are not directed to the minor, but Stupido, and given the prevailing circumstances, Dripster was upset by the arrest and was furious with Stupido because he thought Stupido had set him up with the officers. The severity of the death sentence does not match the gravity of the intent with which Dripster hurt the minor and therefore amounting to unusual punishment. Besides, though paralyzed, the innocent is still alive, and therefore a capital punishment on Dripster will be over punishing.
Conclusively, the evidence gathered from Dufu's house is invalid because the process of its acquisition did not observe the due process of law. The tracker installed on Dufu and the bloodhound used in gathering the evidence infringe the 4th alteration of the constitution. The information used by the magistrate to issue a search warrant for Dufu's house was gathered unlawfully. The evidence gathered from Dufu’s house is not credible for application in the People vs. Dripster case. The officers confiscated a gun from Stupido's car without a warrant, and therefore the gun cannot serve as a piece of evidence in the case. Dummy's verdict for marijuana possession should be reversed because he was not recited the Miranda cautions before the arrest. The confession made by Stupido did not observe the Miranda provision for an attorney. The confession by Stupido is not sufficient evidence because it was made of coercion. The capital sentence on Dripster is over-reactive because Dripster did not intend to shoot the innocent.
References
Baldini Miranda da Cruz, P. (2020). Trackers and Trailblazers: Dynamic Interactions and Institutional Design in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Journal of International
Dispute Settlement.
Brookman, F., Pike, S., & Maguire, E. R. (2019). Dancing around'Miranda': the effects of legal reform on homicide detectives in the USA and the UK. Criminal Law Bulletin, 55(5), 725-763.
Garrett, B. L. (2020). Wrongful Convictions. Annual Review of Criminology, 3.
Garrett, B. L. (2019). Misplaced Constitutional Rights. Available at SSRN 3506884.
Holper, M. (2020). The Fourth Amendment Implications of'US Imitation Judges'. Minnesota Law Review, 104.
Janssen, M. N. (2019). A Life Sentence: An Evaluation of Voter Disenfranchisement Through a Constitutional Lens.
Petersmann, E. U. (2020). Human Rights in International Investment Law and Adjudication: Legal Methodology Questions. Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy, 1-27.
Schreiber, J. M. (2020). The Miranda Rights Abilities of Defendants Found Incompetent to Stand Trial (Doctoral dissertation, Fairleigh Dickinson University).
