Motion to Suppress - Law Paper Example

Published: 2021-08-11
876 words
4 pages
8 min to read
University of California, Santa Barbara
Type of paper: 
Critical thinking
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

A motion to suppress constitutes a document legally signed by the defendant lawyer upon swearing in the affidavit of support of the document and presented before the judges a legally obtained document defending the prayers of the complainant. The content of the document states the illegality of actions committed to the respondent by the petitioner(s) which tends to violate the constitutional rights of the petitioner. The court has to thoroughly examine the case and infer from several court cases that had in the past been confronted with the same challenge in order to draw their rulings. In such a case, therefore, the supreme court has to substantially and evidently handle the suppression case with a lot of caution since the success of the suppression cases tend to weaken the cases of a country thus rendering courts powerless.

Referring to Miranda vs. Arizona facts and case summary, the supreme court of Arizona lawfully found that the confession obtained from Miranda was constitutional since the right of Miranda was not violated from the interrogations carried out. Therefore, borrowing from the supreme court ruling, this court finds it constitutional for the interrogations and obtaining the confession of Miranda to be in possession of illegal DCS. It is hence within the legal jurisdiction that the court upholds the suppression due to the physical evidence, identifications and the statements which were legally obtained from the suspect. In the case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O, argued on March 28, 1984, the search that was carried to assess the violation of the 4th amendment by the school public authority held the court to publicly conclude that the search did not in any way violate the rights of the defendant. Moreover, the question of proper assessment by the public-school officials and the application of the standard to the fact of the case before the court. Being in possession of illegal drug and supply of the same substances was a violation of the school rules. Therefore, the complainant did not interfere or violate the rights of the defendants. The search by the school head was reasonable according to the conclusion of the court in the case of New Jersey and T.L.O. in this case therefore, the court finds it in the public interest to dismiss the suppression of the court case since the student, in this case, Miranda was found to have violated the school rules of being in possession of illegal drug, and distributing the same substance to other individuals. Mr. Lott was then justified in opening Mirandas bag, and the evidence of methamphetamine and the messages retrieved from the Apple iPhone was legally binding. The court holds that the evidence of drug and messages of distribution do not justify the extensive rummaging through Mirandas bags and the effects that followed. The fourth amendment applies to the search conducted by the school authority is to begin an inquiry into the standards governing the searches and not a violation of the students right according to the court case No. 82-1666 of California vs. Beheler.

If the suspect is not placed under arrest, the supreme court reverses the decision o of the court of appeal that the suspects warnings are required in such circumstances in order for the court to rule that the suspect is guilty. Miranda had been identified as a suspect in the school compound following several attempts by the school fraternity to label her suspect. The evidence and the questioning are meant to assess whether the victim s innocent or not hence her rights according to the fourth amendment were never violated in any way. Borrowing from a court case between California vs. Prisock, case No. 80-1846, the supreme court reversed the ruling of the court of appeal that the required content of Mirandas warning is a virtual incantation. The court, therefore, finds it not within the law that the suppression of the cases presented by the defendant be ruled out.

Considering a court case No. 78-1076 of Rhodes Island vs. Innis, argued on October 30, 1979, the term interrogation is only used to refer to mere question. Thus, the conversation between the officers was just a dialogue and not an express questioning. Additionally, the conversation was not initiated with intentions to incarcerate response from the respondent. There appear to be nothing in response that ties the respondent and the school authorities in violating the right of the respondent. The court thus finds it illegal to suppress the search, and evidence prayers of the respondent. It is unethical and illegal to permit the suppression of the case evidenced by the possession and distribution of illegal drug for the argument that the defendants right was violated which on the contrary is not permitted by law.

Having considered the court cases that involved various parties on matters suppression, the Supreme Court thus finds it illegal to pronounce a ruling which tends to suppress the charges rendered against the respondent. The appellate judges, therefore, find it not within the jurisdictions of this court to uphold the defendants prayers. This ruling is meant to serve as an example to any offenders who plan to jeopardize the well-being of others in the society. The judges hence unanimously reached a decision on the ruling against the defendants plea.

Request Removal

If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the website, please click below to request its removal: