Constitutional Rights in Criminal Procedure
In the USA, there are 10 amendments in the constitution that protect the rights of an accused person. In a criminal prosecution, an accused person enjoys a prompt and public trial within the district or town where the incident was committed, and the accused must be informed about the reason and nature of the allegation. The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee the rights of an accused in his defence. States provide attorneys to the accused when they can’t afford them on their own. To protect the personal freedom of the citizens, the Bill of Rights provides protection to those who are suspected or accused of crimes from unjust treatment. The prominence of such protections in this bill seems surprising. According to Kozlovets and Lukyanchikova (2020), the Bill of Rights applies to a person accused, suspected or convicted of crimes or to people involved in other disputes at every stage of the case. The Bill of Rights ensures the protection of the people. Here, we will discuss the case of Georgia V. Randolph in 2005. This case was argued in 2005 and decided on March 22, 2006. It is a good example of the protection of the rights of the accused in a crime.
Facts and Holding of Georgia v Randolph
In this case, the estranged wife called the police against her husband and allowed them to search for drugs even though the respondent was present during the incident. The respondent refused to give consent to the police for the search. He was indicted for the possession of drugs through a warrantless search without the consent of the co-occupant. The court of Georgia countermanded the decision on appeal by the accused. The court of Georgia rejected this case because the other co-occupant of the home denied permission to search by the police officers. According to the rules, the investigation officer cannot make an entry to the premises without the consent of any other co-occupant of the house, and without a warrant, they are not allowed to seize any object. According to the laws of the Supreme Court, whenever two occupants are there and one of them allows a search while the other refuses, this kind of search is not constitutional. According to the law, without a solid reason, a person should stay outside the premises (Georgia v. Randolph, n.d.).
Fourth Amendment Protection Against Unreasonable Searches
The 4th amendment in the constitution of the US is about the protection of citizens from any seizures and unreasonable searches by enforcement agencies. Without any valid search warrant, police are not allowed to search or seize and consider it unreasonable. The search warrant is issued by the court to make an entry to a specific location to seize specific items. Police need to establish probable cause that a crime has been committed and that items related to criminal activity will be found on the premises stated in the permit. There are four fundamental requirements for a valid search warrant. First, the warrant shall be filed allegiantly by the investigation officers. Secondly, a valid warrant is based on reliable information that shows the probable reason for the search. The third requirement of a valid search refers to permission from a neutral magistrate, and the final requirement is that the warrant must be about a specific location to be searched for any suspected items. In the case at hand, this requirement of seizure was not fulfilled. There was no valid warrant from the police; there was no valid warrant issued by a neutral magistrate to the police in the case of Georgia V. Randolph.
Plain View Doctrine and Warrant Exceptions
The plain view doctrine is about the authority of police officers to seize objects which are not mentioned in the warrant when a valid seizure is executed. If they feel that a certain object in plain view provides probable cause and has a connection with criminal activities, they can use their authority to execute the plain view doctrine. They should immediately identify the incriminating character of the object. For the discovery of the plain view doctrine, a three-prong Horton test must be conducted, which refers to 1) the lawful presence of the officer at the venue where the evidence could be viewed plainly; 2) the officer must possess legal rights to access the object; and 3) the immediate appearance of the incriminating character of the object. In this case, we have observed that the search warrant against the person was denied by the co-occupant of the house because the police officers didn’t present authority from the court to seize. The plain view doctrine didn’t meet the requirements of this case. So the decision of the court went in favour of the accused. The plain view doctrine is not relevant to this case because the officers didn’t have lawful access to the objects.
Forensic Methods for Suspect Identification
For the identification of suspects, there are certain methods the investigation team uses to find certain evidence of crimes. Fingerprint comparison, composite drawing and DNA comparison are the three major identification methods widely used by forensic or investigation officers. Biometric verification uses similar equipment, including high-resolution scanners, to digitize the images of some parts of the human body (Knepper & Norris, 2017). In this case, there was no need for identification because the case was not valid from the beginning, and the decision was made in favour of the suspect.
Rights of the Accused and Due Process
According to the constitution of the USA, in a criminal prosecution, the accused has certain rights protected by law. These rights include a speedy and public trial, the right to self-defence, the right to petition, the right to freedom of association, the right to find a legal remedy, and the right to vote. In this case, the accused enjoyed his rights, though there was solid evidence against him, as he was found with drugs at his home. However, the Bill of Rights and the amendments to the Constitution guaranteed the civil rights of the citizen.
References
Georgia v. Randolph. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 12, 2020, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/04-1067
Knepper, P., & Norris, C. (2017). Fingerprint and Photograph: Surveillance Technologies in the Manufacture of Suspect Social Identities. In Urban Crime Prevention, Surveillance, and Restorative Justice (pp. 111-134). CRC Press.
Kozlovets, D. V., & Lukyanchikova, P. R. (2020). THE BILL OF RIGHTS 1791 OF THE USA AND ITS ROLE IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DEMOCRATIC STATE. In European Scientific Conference (pp. 143-144).
Academic Master Education Team is a group of academic editors and subject specialists responsible for producing structured, research-backed essays across multiple disciplines. Each article is developed following Academic Master’s Editorial Policy and supported by credible academic references. The team ensures clarity, citation accuracy, and adherence to ethical academic writing standards
Content reviewed under Academic Master Editorial Policy.
