Criminal Law Theory of the Fourth Amendment

Question: Describe about theCriminal Law for Theory of the Fourth Amendment?. Answer: The Honorable G. Fulton Assistant District Attorney Frederick County Dear Mr. Assistant District Attorney, On 8th April, I received a motion to suppress for the person named Con case no 1253, that there was the violation of Amendment fourth, fifth and sixth of the constitution. It was mention that the accused name was Con who was arrested and was not supported by the police against any rights. But according to the law we can state that there was no violation of Cons right regarding fourth, fifth and sixth amendment because the troop had information about regarding the Cocaine powder and there was also an complain received against him about assaulting Kim a female victim. So the troop arrested Con that night and there was a proper cause for searching Cons car so it doesnt violates his fourth amendment right, according to fifth amendment right the government can take anyones personal property in order to compensate a fair market value thus his car was searched and cocaines were seized which is illegal. There was no violation of sixth amendment right of Con because he was interrogated and pl ace in the district where crime has been committed. "Beck v. Ohio (Kerr, 2012). Cons identification outside the court is not violation of sixth here cause he was identified and place in the station within the district where the crime has been committed or rather where form the jurisdiction from where he was arrested. (Powe, 2013). The cocaine seized from Cons car is not the violation of his Fourth amendment right because there was information to the troop regarding the Cocaine and a complaint was also there against him. So according to fourth amendment right police can seize private property with proper cause as stated in Gideon v. Wainwright (Saetveit, 2016). As per the concern there is no amendment right of Con which has been violate. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you. Respectfully, SIGNATURE P. Wright 2.May 20th 2016 To The Honorable J Pattricks, Assistant District Attorney, Bigtown, Dear Mr. Assistant District Attorney, Memo of Arrest: Jim Agent an administrator in the drug enforcement department is investigating the case on information got to know that Susie Sunshine was cultivating marijuana hydroponically in nutrient enriched water; she was also convicted for 4years in the same case. He also admitted that he along with other DEA agents surveilled Sunshines property by air and got clues regarding marijuana cultivation (Pacula et al., 2014). Jim agent stated that marijuana cultivation which was done by Susie Sunshine was illegal so they searched her property through helicopter for a distance of 500-1000 feet. Here according to the fourth amendment agent cannot search the property without the permission of judge but cultivation of marijuana is illegal so police can search the property complying that there are proper causes and thus it was done by Agent and DEA. But here the cultivation was done by Sunshine in her private property so the Agent needs to take permission from the judge in writing in this regard Susie Sunshines right is violated. But as the investigation was done with proper cause on the information got from his informers there cannot be violation on fourth amendment right (Powe 2013). The confidential sources can be placed by Agent before the court of law in order to give the evidence that they heard from grapevine about the large amount of marijuana cultivation done by Susie Sunshine and the evidence can also be place by providing her previous criminal record for which she was convicted for 4 years due to the same reason. They are also regarded as evidence in the court of law because they are a part of investigation team. Thus an warrant can be issued against her in order to proceed with further investigation (Wandall 2015). As stated in the Case Law: Vernonia School District v. Acton 1995. The investigation done was based on the information of the informant this was a basic investigation done by the agent through helicopter which was legal. But the helicopters used were not based on issued warrant so here Susie Sunshines fourth amendment was violated as it was not based on issued warrant by the judge. The Agent in his favor can state that without helicopters investigation would have been completed, as the property where the cultivation was is a large firm. So, for further investigation an warrant is required against Susie sunshine as it will help in collecting more informations (Watts 2015). As stated in the Case laws: New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985. Thanking you for your consideration and I looking forward to hear from you. Respectfully, SIGNATURE Jim Agent Reference List: Kerr, O. S. (2012). The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment. Pacula, R. L., Boustead, A. E., Hunt, P. (2014). Words can be deceiving: a review of variation among legally effective medical marijuana laws in the United States. Journal of drug policy analysis, 7(1), 1-19. Powe, L. A. (2013). October term 1963:The second American constitutional convention. Journal of Supreme Court History, 38(2), 194-206. Saetveit, K. (2016). Close Calls: Defining Courtroom Closures Under the Sixth Amendment. Stanford Law Review, 68(4), 897. Wandall, R. H. (2015). Trust and Legal Governance: A Case Study of Ethiopian Criminal Justice. Journal of Law and Society, 42(2), 283-307. Watts, G. W. (2015). Gonzales v. Raich: How to Fix a Mess of" Economic" Proportions. Akron Law Review, 40(3), 5.