California Penal Code- Criminal Law
Motion to suppress all evidence obtained during the search of Mr. Smith
The Fourth Amendment of the United States protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. It plays a critical role in ensuring the safety of persons and their property, as defined by the constitution. By affirming the need for the right for individuals to be secure, the amendment categorizes the various incidences when that right can be denied. John Smith’s case is a classic example of the failure of the police to adhere to the regulations provided in the Fourth Amendment. Although he has a right to be secure, Mr. Smith gets searched illegally and without a warrant. Hence, the defendant attorney, as a result of this, files a motion to suppress all evidence obtained during the arrest of Mr. Smith as evidence during his trial.
The lack of a warrant during the search and seizure of evidence in Mr. Smith’s vehicle shows an attempt by a state officer to undermine the legal rights that are provided by the United States constitution. The case file shows that the officer did not have a warrant and opted to search the vehicle as a matter of course by stating that he had a right to seek the car due to officer safety. By not adhering to the guidelines provided by the amendment, Officer Roberts failed to act under the law and went ahead to collect pieces of evidence that became the fruit of the poisonous tree, as provided in Nardone v. the United States. In this regard, the collection of evidence in the form of a gun from the possession of Mr. Smith without clear guidelines makes such evidence inadmissible in the court of law.
The California Penal Code 1538.5 allows the defendant to move for the return of property or to suppress evidence if the seizure is without a warrant. The code also facilitates the suppression of evidence collected if the procedure violated a federal or state constitutional standard. In this respect, Officer Roberts’s action of failing to provide a warrant during the search and seizure, together with his intention to charge the suspect for possession of a handgun and concealing it in the vehicle, is an indication of the violation of several state and federal constitutional laws. This is concerning the suspect’s history, indicating that he did not have any prior violations of any type and had never even had a traffic citation. Hence, it is this violation that calls for the use of the exclusionary rule to prevent all the evidence collected, however tangible they may be, from being used in the court of law.
Mr. Smith’s arrest is a breach to his right to enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. From the case file, the defendant was only arrested after evidence of a concealed gun was collected from his vehicle. The unorthodox means of obtaining the evidence shows an attempt by the officer of the law to use his authority in making unwarranted arrests and booking of suspects without following appropriate protocols. The reasonable expectation of privacy indicates that Mr. Smith was the sole owner of the car searched and that he had the right to agree to the search or not. Also, the case indicates the failure of the officer to produce a legal document that showed he had the right to search. Instead, he forced the car occupants to move to the ear of the vehicle, after which he searched, got the evidence, and made the arrest. Based on this, it is evident that the arrest was made unlawfully and without the use of appropriate constitutional tools. In this respect, the officer violated Mr. Smith’s reasonable expectation of privacy when he made the arrest and charged the suspect with possession of a concealed weapon.
Based on the facts presented, Mr. Smith should make the motion to suppress all the evidence collected during the search and arrest. As a citizen of the United States of America, he is protected by the Fourth Amendment that ensures his security against unwarranted search and seizure. Furthermore, the California Penal Code 1538.5 gives him a legal basis for filing such motions so that he is not charged for murder even though the collected evidence may be overwhelming. Besides, the Fifth Amendment, which provides rights to criminal and legal rights proceedings, protects the defendant from self-incrimination that might emerge with the use of the evidence collected from the car. In this regard, the exclusionary rule defends Mr. Smith. However, Ms. Gallagher, the second defendant, may not get protection from the reasonable expectation of privacy by the mere fact that she was a passenger in Mr. Smith’s car. Hence, she did not have the right to prevent the police officer from conducting an unwarranted search on her that might have led to the subsequent arrest.
To conclude, the fourth and fifth amendments of the United States provide citizens protection against illegal search and arrest by law enforcement officers. Also, the California Penal Code 1538.5 allows the defendants to file motions for suppressing evidence that is obtained without warrants or when there are constitutional infringements. In this regard, Mr. Smith, whose rights were violated during the illegal search and arrest, can file a motion through his defense attorney to suppress all the evidence that was obtained and is currently being used on his trial for possession of a murder weapon.