Criminal Law Term Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Criminal Law Term - Essay Example He was released the next day when it was confirmed that he had paid the fine. He sued BCJ and ECCF under 42 U.S.C. Â § 1983. The case1 primarily challenged the authority on his rights under Fourth Amendment to strip search procedure on minor offense. The court upheld the appeal that strip search in minor offense violates the individual’s rights under Fourth Amendment. This verdict was reversed by the Unites States Supreme Court in 2012 and allows law authorities huge leverage to conduct search, including strip search even for minor offense. The court verdict was supported by 5-4 majority. Issue The main issue is that of rights granted to citizens of America under Fourth Amendment which challenges jail authorities to conduct strip search of individuals arrested for minor offense without solid reasons. The privacy rights of individuals are therefore at stake. Rule 42 U.S.C. Â § 19832, popularly known as Section 1983, provides citizens of United States, as injured party in the court of law, to sue and claim redress for violations of their rights, privileges and immunities as granted by the Constitution and Laws of the nation. The Fourth Amendment3 promotes privacy rights and explicitly forbids search of individuals including in their persons, house, paper, and effects that violates rights to be secure and says that no warrants shall be issued unless supported by oath and affirmation. Thus, authorities can conduct search only when they have reasonable suspicion or affirmation to the facts that individual has violated the law. Analysis The case is important because it questions the validity of Fourth Amendment and defines the parameters of rights of citizens under it. The verdict supported strip search. The petitioner contended that minor offense, which actually did not apply, was not sufficient reason for the humiliating strip search that he had undergone twice within a period of seven days in Burlington jail and Essex correctional center. The section 1983 and the fourth amendment, both call for reasonable suspicion for search. Indeed, rights if citizens under Fourth Amendments has been controversial for long. Supreme Court has yet to analyze and define the reasonable clauses that justify rights of citizens under Fourth Amendment for strip searches in jails and detention centers4. In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, the Supreme Court verdict upheld the legitimacy of strip search and declared that detention centers must have substantial power so as to maintain safety and order in the place. They also maintained that the threat of contraband being brought inside the jail or detention facilities is critical issue that substantially outweighs the privacy interests of the detainees or the petitioner. It can be argued that reasonable suspicion is important ingredient that needs to be considered within the wider scope of fourth amendment and was also considered in this case. The petitioner was already onc e arrested in 1998 in Essex for fleeing police and charged with obstruction of justice and use of deadly weapon. He was fined when he pled guilty. In 2005, he was arrested for defaulting in the fine, which was already paid but somehow not updated in the record. The petitioner was not searched in the police station but in the Burlington jail when was to share his cell with others. Thus, for security purpose, the search was necessary. Indeed, as