Question one responds as follows: In the scenario, there are constitutional issues that are involved whether one can or cannot do in relation to the evidence of other criminal activities which are apart from the scope of the original wiretap. According to the scenario, the constitutional issue that arises is the Fourth Amendment of the United States of America constitution which protects against illegal seizures and searches (Parent, 2017). The amendment dictates the right of security to people in their houses, persons, papers, against not reasonable searches and seizures should not be violated or warrant issued.
The warrant of the search issued by the judge is categorically and dictates on nature of the dialogue to be documented or confiscated and the one that is unrelated to the matter at hand. The latter is considered to be the part of the citizen right to freedom of privacy and ought not to be confiscated. The dialogues deemed to be related to the matter at hand are classified as class one calls. However, it should be noted two other categories of calls exist (Izzi, 2018). First, there are those calls that which have a direct bearing on the offenses committed or underway but which are unrelated to the search warrant granted this is classified as class 2 calls. Secondly, there are those are those calls that are deemed as insignificant and are hence not useful in the investigations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It should be noted that evidence obtained from class 2 calls can be admissible in a court of law if a new search warrant was procedurally issued by a judge before investigation and prosecution. In other words, new crimes committed cannot be legally investigated and prosecuted using a search warrant which was intended to serve a different crime. Under the federal piece of registration known as “Wiretap Act,” it is unconstitutional for anyone to deliberately wiretap leak or consume any information delivered from any electronic interception except the case where search interception was legally authorized by a judge through a wiretap warrant (Parent, 2017). This piece of registration criminalizes illegal wiretapping and institutes civil and criminal penalties when such breaches occur.
A legal dilemma, therefore, arises from this Act if as the suspect is apprehended for offenses not related to suspicion behind a wiretap what then is the fate of any evidentially material that may be derived from the said wiretap.
# 2 Arrest of Other Individuals.
Police wiretapping are allowed in some circumstances were they wiretap suspect’s phone calls, computer systems and communication gadgets but with a court order. The court gives wiretap warrant only for the associated crimes. During the investigation, the police can get directly related information which will be classified as class one calls, information on other related crimes which the police were not informed which is usually classified as class two or junk information which is class three calls (Izzi, 2018). In this case where the police get information of other crimes, he is required to get a new wiretap warrant from the court through the prosecutor. In order to obtain the new warrant, the police are required to show the probable cause required and they must also prove to the court that there are no other means of obtaining the information or other means are dangerous. It is the job of the police to go and raise a new issue to the court in order to get a new warrant that will help in arresting the suspect. Any other information and evidence recorded from the wiretap is classified in the call categories and it may be useful in making other investigations. The information obtained can also be used to track other numbers that the suspect was calling.
#3 Potential risk of Failing to Arrest Other Individuals.
Failing to arrest the other individuals involved in the crime may pose other potential risks. This is because most of the crimes involve a series of individuals who take part in committing the crime. For instance, taking in the case of drug trafficking, a series of individuals are involved starting from the original owner, the transporters and the buyers. Failing to arrest the involved individuals would therefore mean that the drug trafficking will still continue even with the absence of one of the individual involved. Therefore, in order to fully deal with such crimes, more investigation will be required to be performed to the series is individuals involved. It may not be easy to investigate and arrest all the involved parties at the same time but arrest in one party at a time would eventually help even original supplier of the drugs (Wilkinson & Ruby, 2016). Moreover, conducting proper investigation would even assist sporting the corrupt officers who may be involved in crime. It is also important to note that before arresting a suspect, the court requires enough evidence to prove the suspect is guilty. A police officer will be in violation of the first amendment right if he or she happens to wiretap conversation or arrest the suspect without a warrant from the court.
In conclusion, the constitutional acts such as the wiretap act and first amendment acts should have exemptions or changes that will allow police officers fully perform their duties but do not exploit human. In so doing the police are able to ensure security among the State citizens and also reduce both the local and international crimes. In addition, the arising legal dilemma would be eliminated. Wiretapping assists the police officers in conduction investigations in circumstances where other means of investigation are too risky and dangerous. In contrary, the obtained personal information should not be exposed to the purpose of individual’s security.
References
Izzi, M. (2018). Police Use of Wiretaps | LegalMatch Law Library. Retrieved from http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/police-use-of-wiretaps.html
Parent, W. A. (2017). Privacy, morality, and the law. In Privacy(pp. 105-124).Routledge.
Wilkinson, T. G., & Ruby, J. N. (2016). Wiretap Act Prosecutions of Defense Attorneys: The Serious Legal and Ethical Concerns Arising from the Use of RecordedConversations as Evidence. Vill. L. Rev. Online, 61, 1.
