Texasvs. Brown Supreme court case
Describeshow Supreme Court of United States has been loaded with many courtcases. Some of the cases presented to Supreme Court encompasscomplaints and their defendants.
A case that was presented involved a police who seized evidence froma defendant who arrested for packing heroin inballoons.
Constitutionaland amendment issues
Themain constitution issue, in this case, is determining whether thepolice had the right to seize the evidence. This is explained inaccordance with fourth amendment.
TexasAttorney General Information
AttorneyGeneral stated that the law of information disclosure must be abidedto whether in the judicial decision or constitutional statutory.
Coolidgevs. New Hemisphere case
Argumentshave been described for and against the Court of criminal appeal inrelation to Coolidge vs. New Hemisphere case.
Beltonvs. New York Case
Argument for and against Supreme Court ruling have been explained inrelation to Belton vs. New York supreme case.
Based on Supreme Court argument, opinion has been deduced that provesthat the policed was right to seize defendant’s evidence.
Thesupreme court of the United States has made numerous rulings in thepast on cases that were presented to them by complainants and theirrespective defendants. For instance, a case was heard in the earlyyears of 1983 that was majorly based on a drug offense (SupremeCourt, 11) In the case, the police department arrested the defendantfor suspected offense of drug trafficking. The defendant had packedsuspected narcotics in the balloons that were found in the car he wasdriving. The police arrested the defendant after realizing that hadno driving license (Supreme Court, 12).
Thedefendant was ordered to get out of the car and upon observing thepackages the officer noticed a white powdery substance that waspackaged in the balloons. The police department, later on, seized thepackages (U.SSupreme Court 32).The act was in contrary to the American law that states that theevidence should be presented before the court of law for a fairjudgment to be given to the defendant in any case.
Thedefendant was arraigned in a court of law with charges of illegallybeing in the possession of heroin. The substance was confirmed to beheroin by the government chemist. Despite this, the defendant deniedbeing in possession of the substance accused of. He was later onconvicted despite the fact that the evidence of the drugs he wasaccused of being in possession of was seized by the police department(U.SSupreme Court 35).Fortunately, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeal reversed theconviction stating reasons that the evidence in the case needed to bepresented in the court instead of being seized. The defendant wasremanded and the judgment issued by the previous court reversed. Thiscase was then directed to Supreme Court of United States of America(Supreme Court, 12). The core reason why the case was presented toSupreme Court is that the Texas court of criminal appeal had theaccused was police department was not contented with the appellateruling.
ConstitutionalIssues and Amendment
Aslong the balloon in question had heroin, then the police officer hadthe right to seize the evidence. As described by the governmentchemist, it was a normal trend to package the powdered drugs inballoons and many cases have been reported whereby the convictedparties used balloons to transport such drugs. Then the expertjustified that the police had all rights to seize the balloons fromthe victim’s car at the night of the arrest. This case broughtabout different aspects in the rulings made previously by theAmerican courts (Supreme Court, 15).
Theamendment related to the reversion of the judgment was in favor ofthe defendant and it stated that the evidence was obtained inviolation of the fourth amendment in the rules that govern the state.The laws presented and justified the seizing of the evidence in thecase. It urgently needs immediate constitutional amendment to make afair judgment since the ruling made by the appeal court was unfair.
Althoughthe police had evidence before the case was heard, the ruling thatwas issued earlier had to be reversed and the evidence presentedbefore the court could give its judgment. Supreme Court came up witha totally different aspect of the case by concluding that the officerdid not commit an offense when he seized the balloons from thedefendant car on the night of the arrest. The judge explained thatthe officer needed not to produce a warrant to seize the evidenceupon arrest (Supreme Court 17). The Supreme Court concluded that thepolice has right to examine any vehicle and arrest the occupant ifsuspected to ferry drugs.
TexasAttorney General Information
Accordingto Texas Attorney General, The law demands disclosure of informationthat had is considered to be confidential either by judicial decisionor constitutional statutory. The Supreme Court had to be issued withthe evidence so as to make a just decision (Supreme Court, 20). Thepolice had the right to seize the drugs from the drug baron so as tonecessitate investigations. Therefore, the police had to seek whetherto disclose the information or make it confidential. Finally, theSupreme Court had the mandate to question for the disclosure of theseized evidence from them to justify their accusation.
TexasCourt of Criminal Appeal Bases their Ruling on Coolidge vs. NewHemisphere
Justlike Coolidge who maintained his innocence in the murders he wassuspected in, the drug baron maintained his innocence too (U.SSupreme Court 38).The Texas Court of criminal appeal ruled in favor of the drug baronas the Coolidge remained innocent despite many murder cases he wasaccused of. This ruling in favor of Drug trafficker was similarlyreflected in Coolidge vs. New Hemisphere incident.
Thiscase ruling contradicts to Coolidge vs. New Hemisphere. Coolidge wasaccused of several murder cases while the drug baron had only asingle case. Though the court ruled that the seizure wasunconstitutional, the police department had an evidence to prove theconvicted guilty. This is contrary to Coolidge case where the policelacked solid evidence (U.SSupreme Court 40).
Beltonvs. New York Supreme court Ruling Arguments for and against
SupremeCourt of United States made similar decision to the decision made bythe court pertaining Belton. In the case of Belton, the court arguedthat the police did a wonderful job in arresting all the automobileoccupants and seizing their car (Supreme Court, 25). The AmericanSupreme court followed the same exemplary ruling and ruled in favorof the police. The police department was proved to be right when itseized the evidence and took it to a chemist for evaluation.
Notall aspect of the ruling was drawn from Belton case. In this case,the police were just proven right to seize any ordered and arrestonly individuals who possess the drug (Supreme Court, 30). In Beltoncase, police were given the mandate to arrest all occupant of theautomobile suspected to contain illicit drugs.
Opinionon the Case Presented
Thepolice officer had the right to seize the balloons from the victim atthe time of arrest. The balloons had been presented in the court oflaw as evidence at the time of conviction. The Supreme Court of UniteStates made a fair ruling since it will aid in the eradication ofdrug trafficking. It is an offense to possess heroin in the UnitedStates of America in particular, in Texas, thus, the police had therights to arrest the defendant that night on grounds that thedefendant had being in possession of heroin. There has been anincrease in cases of drug trafficking in Texas and thus the policedepartment has to deduce strategies to deal with the increase in thevice and develop effective strategies to convict the responsiblefolks. The laws should also be clarified on the seizing of thesuspected product by police officers. Presenting the evidence beforethe court of law is also an important aspect in ensuring that thereis a fair verdict issued to the defendant and the correspondent.
SupremeCourt. Supremecourt of Texas, effects of the Texas vs. Brown case of 1983.Retrievedfrom, https://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/pdf/20090403013920_large.pdf,2008. Web. 10-30
U.SSupreme Court. U.S.Supreme Court, the effects of the case on the people of America.Retrieved from, http://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us.Web.30-40