Criminal procedures protect suspected criminal

Criminal procedures

Criminal procedures help to protect suspected criminals from indiscriminate treatment and harassment from law enforcing agents, hence protect suspects and defendants constitutional rights. All law enforcing agents must follow these procedures from the original encounter with suspects, arrest, investigation, trial, sentencing, and appeal. The law guarantees individual liberties from unwarranted arrests and ransacking. In addition, it guarantees the security of people in any environment, even if suspected (Gales, 2009, Para. 1-4). Scheb further adds that all law-enforcing officers must have a firm basis for conducting searches. In addition, arrestees must permit officers to ransack their property, unless in tricky situations (2008, p.8).

Different municipalities and federal governments have varying crime codes. These codes define the conduct of its citizens and in combating crime. Failure by the to follow such procedures may cause loss of evidence, hence hindering justice. To ensure that no evidence is lost, officers should have arrest warrants, unless the officer strongly believes that, the suspect has committed a criminal offense (Legal information institute, 2009, Para. 1-5).

A warrant is a document that gives police officers rights to search and apprehend suspects. The fourth amendment as dictated by the Supreme Court never conditions police officers to have warrants during all arrests. However, it guides law enforcement bodies conduct; on how and when to conduct searches. In addition, the arrest can be made without a warrant if, a person commits the offense in the presence of a law enforcement officer. An unacceptable arrest does not guarantee fair prosecution. This is because; the use of wrong arrest procedures invalidates some evidence (Criminal procedure, 2009, Para. 1-3). Officer Smith was right when he followed Radleys car, due to it being not common in that locality. In addition, he applied the correct questioning procedures. This is because he requested Radley to interrogate him, which he went ahead and did.

Fundamental rights in criminal procedures include freedom from perverse ransacking, freedom from harsh punishment, a fast trial, rights from jeopardy, conflict with opposing witnesses, and self-blame. In addition, all individuals have the right to have a trial by a jury and get help from counsel (Criminal procedure act, 1977, p. 23-27). By checking Radleys car without his consent, Officer Smith violated Radleys rights. Although the officer lacked satisfaction from what Radley had told him, he had no right to check his car without his permission. This is because, although smith found some evidence that linked to the crimes that had been committed, there was a likelihood of evidence invalidation. If Smith was dissatisfied with answers from Radley, he was to seek permission from Radley first. As gale argues, the state does not permit any officer to search an automobile, unless there is reasonable suspicion. He further adds searches conducted without enough suspicion, go against the fourth amendment.

For example under the vehicle search requirements, police officers have the authority to search vehicles if they have a strong conviction that the vehicle is carrying materials that will give clues on specific crimes. This is because vehicles are in motion and the majority of drivers lack privacy (Gales, 2009, Para. 14-16).

When officer smith consulted the dispatcher on any crimes reported and whether Radley had an arrest warrant, the only feedback he got was on t burglaries committed. In addition, the dispatcher gave him evidence that linked the tools that Radley was carrying. Although he had no arrest warrant, he had the right to arrest him due to suspicion. Smith never explained to Radley why he was arresting him, which was wrong. In addition, Smith never questioned Radley on why he was carrying the tools before apprehending him. As Orfield argues such arrests, cause a lot of inconvenience to motorists depending on duties that await them in case they are not burglars. He further argues, law-enforcing agents, must thoroughly interview the suspects if they are carrying no dangerous weapons. This helps officers to make decisions on whether to arrest the suspects or not (2005, p. 33-34).