Law Criminology Case

Introduction

The most basic rights of the accused are detailed in the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This part of the Constitution is known as the "Bill of Rights." In this case the police is suppose to evaluate all of the legal constitutional issues, however, it is said that U.S Fourth Amendment describes some of the most important protections. This states that people are protected from unwarranted searches and seizures by the government. It further provides that the police cannot issue an arrest without probable cause and that there “are endorsed by Oath or affirmation, and specifically describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be detained or confiscated” (Hall & Haslam, n.d). From fourth amendment we will get possible answers to the situation of this case.

Discussion

The Fourth Amendment generally requires police to obtain a warrant before making an entry or registration, but there are many exceptions to this general rule laid down by the courts. If the police obtained a warrant before making an entry or record, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that the order was invalid. If the police made ??the entry or search without a warrant, the burden of proof is on the Government to establish that one of the exceptions applied. Exceptions include Terry Stop (limited apprehension of a person, other than an arrest, requires only reasonable suspicion, not a court order); plain sight (police observed the test while they were in a legal position to prevent immediate harm or destruction of evidence). The illegal wiretapping, illegal traffic stops, illegal detention and illegal dwellings records or private property are all approved under the Fourth Amendment prohibition against excessive inputs and register (Hall & Haslam, n.d).

The situation is different in a criminal trial in the U.S., where the legal regulation of interception of telephone conversations and electronic surveillance was initially considered from the standpoint IV Amendment USA, "likened by its legal consequences to the search, and is carried out pursuant to a warrant, that is, under the control of the judiciary.” (Gershowitz, 2013).

However, at the time when the amendment was adopted IV (1791), the possibility of eavesdropping on telephone conversations did not exist. But the usual eavesdropping was known to the common law.

A number of provisions of the federal criminal procedural law of the USA related to electronic surveillance and eavesdropping on private oral communications ...