Self Incriminations and Confessions

Self Incriminations and Confessions

Introduction

In courts of the United States of America, in criminal trials the law of confession does not exist, in Fifth Amendment it is stated that no one can be witness of himself in any criminal case. Confessions are considered as holy grails of law of enforcement. In our country many judgments are based in declarations under appeal or the presumption of guilt, and the silence of the accused. To make any judgment courts rely on evidences and police rely on variety of tools used to investigate criminal activities out of which tap into the telephone conversation of a suspect is mostly commonly used method (Fredrickson, 2007). Wiretap is considered as an important tool by police that often helps them to produce good evidences against potential criminals. However it is very important for policy to take into consideration major invasions of privacy and should follow procedures when performing a wiretap.

I, as police officer is asked by judges to issues investigate phone conversation of suspect of drug trafficking. Here my responsibility is to monitor phone conversations of suspect and other individuals who may or may not be involved in drug ring. However before obtaining enough evidences to prosecute and arrest the suspect, I hear other type of criminal activity. Now in this paper, we are going to analyze a case of drug trafficking in which various constitutional issues related to the scenario and consequences of various possibilities. The purpose of this paper is to let readers know about constitutional issues involved in wiretapping and risks associated with this activity.

A: Wiretap order to similar to a warrant, it is a legally allowed to tap suspect's telephonic conversations. However it is important to have approval from judge. In this case judge himself have issued an order to wiretap suspect's (involved in drug trafficking) conversation. One of the important constitutional issues can be faced if it detects evidences of criminal activities outside the scope of original order of wiretap (Rutledge, 1994). Thus, in order to protect the basic human rights and civil liberties is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, the legal rules governing the use of eavesdropping that contain these laws require an independent judicial control over every action of law enforcement agencies in conducting eavesdropping (Odell, 2005). It also ensure compliance with the laws of their claims by the fact that law enforcement is not given the right to use on any court or other judicial process of any evidence obtained (in this case) in violation of the law. The action of these federal laws applies to the states.

Wiretapping is prohibited under investigation: the conflict with the right to respect for private life and the loyalty of the evidence, the principle of the prohibition of listening under police investigation, and the exception to the prohibition of wiretapping under investigation: organized crime The wiretaps is authorized under the instruction: conciliation with the right to respect for private life and the loyalty of the evidence, acceptance of wiretapping ...