The State of Confusion v. William K. Defendant

Criminal law cases and the application of the Fourth Amendment call for an understanding of pertinent issues that define defendants’ and respondents’ rights. In the case entailing The State of Confusion v. William K. Defendant, two main issues will be addressed to draw conclusions about the matter. First, the forceful entry by law enforcement officers in the absence of the owner and without permission will be evaluated. Second, the question of whether the officers sought to have the defendant incriminate himself in the absence of a lawyer will be answered to clarify the decisions of the case.

Facts Summary

Information obtained from police surveillance and credible informants formed the first fact of the case that contributed to the forceful entry. The police have information that links the defendant to a purple bike that has often been spotted and marked for reckless driving. The police tried to stop the bike severally without success. In addition, the law enforcement officers have received a hint that William is involved in some drug deal wherein he is to move drugs in the SUV and use the bike to make a run. Connecting this information, the police desire to speak to the owner, but in his absence find a purple bike outside the house, where they find a load of heroin. These facts provided enough grounds for the officers to further their investigations into the house and arrest the defendant on arrival.

Discussion on the First Procedural Issue

The first issue entails forceful entry and searches without permission from the owner. The defendant feels that his privacy rights have been violated, while the police argue that there was probable cause for the search. First, since the police collected evidence from the motorbike parked outside the house, the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. Second, the load of heroin collected provided a probable cause that necessitated entry into the house. In Lange v. California case no. 20-18, it was ruled that an officer can be allowed warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence and imminent harm (Liptak, 2021). Therefore the search conducted on the motorbike and the entry into the house was legal.

William’s claim falls under the exigent circumstances provision under the law. The defendant’s argument of privacy violation is significant since the law requires that searches be conducted in the presence of the suspect and with their permission (Bergman & Bergman, 2022). Therefore the first procedural issue is ruled in favor of the law enforcement officers. In reference to the State v. Morsette case, police officers should not just suspect and conduct a warrantless search or an illegal stop without a clear link between the suspect and the crime (Hackman, 2020). This implies that having the motorbike outside the suspect’s house was not enough reason since they did not directly connect it to William before entering the house.

Discussion on the Second Procedural Issue

The argument on whether the police wanted the suspect to self-incriminate falls under Miranda law and the defendant’s right to a lawyer. On the side of the defendant, the failure to inform him of his legal rights can be termed as an intent to cause the suspect to self-incriminate. In the case of Torres v. Madrid, it was ruled that any application of physical force to the body of a person with the intent to restrain is a seizure (Fields, 2020). The fact that the police gave no explanation to William when he arrived but rather handcuffed him and led him to the police car proves that the defendant’s rights were violated to make him talk about his participation in the drug trafficking crimes, thus incriminating himself.

On the side of the police, the fact that drugs were obtained from the defendant’s house and that the police had a legal search warrant links William, to the crimes for which he was accused. It can be argued that taking William to jail was imminent in preventing the crimes that were expected to happen shortly. Since the matter was urgent and the defendant was Mirandized at the jail, the police officers’ conduct can be justified under the law (Fields, 2020). It can also be argued that since the police did not question the suspect on their way to jail, William talked of his own volition, and therefore his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the State of Confusion v. William K. Defendant case provides a platform on which the provisions of the Fourth Amendment, Miranda law, probable cause, and exigent circumstances. On the first procedural issue, I would decide in favor of the police, holding that the defendant’s rights were not violated by the police entering his home without his presence. The police’s argument is more compelling because there was enough evidence linking him to the criminal gang that necessitated immediate action. On the second issue, I would decide in favor of the law enforcement officers, arguing that the police did not cause the defendant to self-incriminate. This follows from the fact that the officers’ claim is more compelling since William was not questioned nor forced to address anything before he was Mirandized in jail.

References

Bergman, P., & Berman, S. J. (2022). The criminal law handbook: Know your rights, survive the system. Nolo.

Fields, S. (2020). Brief of Amici Curiae Fourth Amendment Scholars in Support of Petitioner, Torres v. Madrid, 19-292. Web.

Hackman, J. (2020). Criminal Law-Search and Seizure: Determining Probable Cause Relating to” Hands-Free” Laws. NDL Rev., 95, 193. Web.

Liptak, A. (2021). Supreme Court Rules’ Hot Pursuit’ by Police Does Not Always Justify Entry Into a Home. The New York Times, A14-L. Web.