As An Associate Justice Of The U.S. Supreme Court, Prepare A ✓ Solved

As an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, prepare a 4

As an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, prepare a 4–5 page opinion for the Court based on the following facts: James Smith was arrested for burglarizing his next door neighbor's apartment in the state of California. And without the benefit of a warrant, the neighbor, who is a friend of Mr. Smith, forced open the front door to Mr. Smith's apartment and saw his property. The neighbor called the police, and they immediately arrested Mr. Smith for burglary and possession of stolen property out of fear that he would get rid of the property before they returned with a search warrant. Mr. Smith's conviction in the state and federal courts were upheld, and it is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. Prepare the Court's response to this constitutional challenge that Mr. Smith was denied equal protection under the law. Identify specific examples in the language of prior decisions. Examine some of the arguments used by the framers of the Constitution while debating the language of the document. Include any philosophical underpinning that might influence the court's ruling. Include any social force(s) that could be useful to guide the decision. Outline major philosophical arguments of the U.S. Supreme Court in such cases as Weeks v. United States and Mapp v. Ohio. Use specific references to support your position from the U.S. Constitution. Please note that the U.S. Bill of Rights brings a philosophical perspective that should not be lost and has helped to shape constitutional law in the United States.

Paper For Above Instructions

Opinion of the Court

In the case before us, the question arises whether James Smith's constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when he was arrested without a warrant based solely on the actions of his neighbor, who forcibly entered his home. This case presents significant implications for the principles of due process and equal protection under the law.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and requires a warrant supported by probable cause. The core issue in this case is whether the neighbor's actions, motivated by personal friendship, constitute a lawful search that justifies Smith's arrest. As established in Weeks v. United States (1914), the exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in court. This principle was reinforced in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), extending the exclusionary rule to state courts, which is vital to protect individuals against unlawful governmental intrusion.

In examining the facts, it is essential to recognize that the neighbor lacked warrant authority. The neighbor’s unilateral decision to enter Smith's apartment and subsequently report his observations to the police raises concerns about the parameters of lawful search. A warrant serves as a critical safeguard against arbitrary police action and ensures that a neutral magistrate assesses the legitimacy of a search. The absence of such oversight in this case fundamentally undermines the integrity of the process that the Fourth Amendment seeks to uphold.

The framers of the Constitution intended to ensure that individual rights were not subject to the whims of governmental authority. Their debates surrounding the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights reflect a profound commitment to the principles of liberty and justice. Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 84 that “a bill of rights is not only unnecessary but would even be dangerous,” asserting that by explicitly listing rights, we risk omission of others. Nevertheless, the Bill of Rights remains a critical foundation that embodies essential civil liberties—including the right to due process and protection from unreasonable searches.

Furthermore, the philosophical underpinning of natural law—a doctrine advocated by figures such as John Locke—argues that individuals possess inherent rights that cannot be impinged upon by the state. This notion is reflected in the Declaration of Independence and subsequently embedded in the enshrined rights of the Constitution. Natural law emphasizes the necessity of protection against government overreach, suggesting that the state’s infringement on personal liberty without due process contravenes moral and legal principles.

Social forces also play a vital role in guiding the decision. As societal views on privacy and individual rights have evolved, there is an increasing recognition of the importance of protecting personal spaces from arbitrary governmental intrusion. Public sentiment favors strong protections against unlawful searches, manifested in increasing scrutiny on law enforcement practices and an expectation for accountability. This shift underscores the significance of reinforcing Fourth Amendment protections in light of contemporary realities.

Conclusion

In summary, the arrest of James Smith, predicated upon the neighbor's unlawful entry into his home without a warrant or probable cause, constitutes a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The principles established in Weeks v. United States and Mapp v. Ohio serve as essential cornerstones in this decision, emphasizing the exclusionary rule's critical role in safeguarding individual freedoms. By denying Mr. Smith's constitutional rights, the state not only undermines the integrity of the legal system but jeopardizes the very foundation of justice that the Constitution aspires to uphold. Therefore, I assert that we must reverse the lower court's rulings and uphold the principles of justice and constitutional protection for all individuals.

References

• Constitution of the United States. (n.d.). U.S. Government Publishing Office. Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf
• Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).
• Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
• Hamilton, A. (1788). Federalist No. 84. In The Federalist Papers. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/CREC-2010-7783
• Locke, J. (1689). Two Treatises of Government. Retrieved from https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7370
• Harris, A. (2016). The Impact of Mapp v. Ohio on Law Enforcement. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 13(2), 167-199.
• Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971).
• Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
• Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973).
• Jefferson, T. (1787). The Declaration of Independence. Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript