The first case presented is a criminal case involving the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of a man for selling twenty-dollar worth of heroin. The man’s conviction was based on in-court identification of the agent using a single picture as evidence against the man. As I analyze the case, there were some important issues that were overlooked by the court. First, it was the first time that Glass had seen the defendant and it took two days more before he viewed the picture. Second, Glass in-court identification of the defendant was based on a single picture of the man he has seen only for the first time.
According to the article published by Cavendish Publishing Staff, the “weight of an item of evidence refers to the extent to which that item makes a proposition more or less probable” (p. 1). The article explains that “relevance that gets an item of evidence onto the scale in the first place, but it is weight that governs the position that it takes there” (p. 1). In the case above, the weight of the evidence presented seems to be light on the ground that agent Glass had never seen the man before and he identified him based only on a single picture which he has viewed two days after he met the man.
The item of evidence is questionable because the time interval and the lone picture do not really provide clear evidence enough to convict the man. Further more, the picture did not specify if it was taken on act of handing the drugs to Glass. Granting that Glass has a good memory and he recalled everything about the man’s appearance, even so, the burden of proof which wrest on prosecution still needs to be satisfied. The Article cited that “the burden of proof rest on a party in relation to a particular issue of fact in a civil or criminal case and which must be discharged or satisfied…” (p.
37). The procedure employed by the officers clearly did not satisfy the burden of proof and the weight of the evidence presented was not really sufficient to merit conviction. The court has rendered a biased decision in favor of the officers. Thus the defense lawyers appealed the case to the US Supreme Court. Should the in-court identification be allowed? I don’t see any reason not to allow in-court identification but the court must allow the necessary trial procedure to flow freely and should not be altered by technicalities which are often lawyers’ ill strategy to monopolize the case.
In- court identification should be allowed as one of the procedure necessary in establishing the merit of the case. The Cavendish Publishing Staff article noted that “identification of a defendant for the first time when he is in dock of trial is to be avoided” (p. 72), but it cited that in the case Barnes v Chief Constable Durham the “Divisional Court acknowledge that such evidence was acceptable in magistrates’ courts in certain cases” (p. 72). The article pointed out that:
“The evidence of a previous out of court identification of the defendant can be given by the person who made the identification, because it shows that the witness was able to identify the defendant at a time nearer to the events under investigation, so reducing the chance of mistake” (R v Christie (1914). The dependant’s conviction for selling heroin was in the cloud of doubt because of the argument presented above. The officers should have presented sufficient evidence that would prove that the man in the picture previously identified by Glass was indeed the same man just convicted for selling heroin.
Since this was not clearly proven the U. S. Supreme Court should not affirm the case as this might establish wrong precedence in the justice system. Did the Consent to Search Authorize opening closed container found inside the vehicle? In the first place, Florida Supreme Court law about consent to search vehicle is clear. Consent does not extend to close container found inside the vehicle. Law enforcement must be fully aware of this Supreme Court ruling as they are the ones who enforces the law.
In the case of Jimez, it seems that he understood this ruling of the Supreme Court allowing Florida Police officer to search his vehicle the fact there was that brown paper bag inside his car which contains cocaine inside it. Jimez must be aware that the paper bag was not part of the consent or unless he is innocent of the presence of that paper bag in his car. Regardless of what is the content of that paper bag, the consent to search vehicle which the Supreme Court permit is clear, it does not extend to closed container found inside the vehicle.
Since the case did not specify if the police officer ask Jimez permission to open the bag, it is logical to assume that the officer upon seeing the brown paper bag open it instinctively in search of what he overheard in a public telephone as a drug transaction. However, Roger Przybylski, Mark Merny, Christine Martin, and Jeff Travis noted the US Supreme Court ruling that “officers may search a car for contraband or evidence if the car is in motion when seized and there is probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or evidence of a crime” (p.
20). They further noted that the US Supreme Court clarified this rule in 1991 in Florida vs. Jemino “to reinforce the right of officers to search the contents of a close container inside a car with out obtaining separate permission from the subject, if that close container might reasonably hold the object of the search. Therefore the consent to search the vehicle under US Supreme Court ruling authorize the opening of a close container found inside the car provided there is a probable cause and the car is in motion when seize.
It is clear that the officer had met these requirements and the evidence found in a close container inside the car can be used against the defendant because the search was done with due process and in accordance with requirement of the law. Should the US Supreme Court hold the evidence of the tape recorder? Lorenz conviction of his bribery case can be justified quite easily based on the crimes he has actually committed. The case stated that Lorenz attempted to bribe an IRS agent to fix his tax problems with the federal government, which in turn reported the incident to his superior.
It is quite logical to assume that the IRS agent acted upon instruction of his superior during the second meeting with Lorenz about the latter’s bribery offer in order to obtain evidence. The agent had a tape recorder in his pocket and recorded their conversation with Lorenz offered to bribe the agent at once, which stated: Peter Nils Gravosky, and Russel G Smith cited that the court held that the tape recordings were “admissible in evidence because there had been no interception of a telecommunications system as the recording was made by a mechanism external to the telephone” (p.
31) Thus, the U. S Supreme Court can hold the tape recorder evidence of Lorenz was properly used in the federal trial of Lorenz. Nils and Gravosky pointed out that in R v Migliorini (1981) 38 ALR 356, it was held that recording a telephone conversation by means of a suction cup affixed to a telephone receiver and connected to a tape recorder was an illegal interception as it involved picking up the signal in its transmission over the telecommunication system with in the meaning of s 6 of the 1979 act” (p.
31). The agent obviously did not violate any laws on the use of telecommunication or illegally intercepted communication. The Supreme Court should therefore affirm the conviction of Lorenz because the decision was fair and was based on evidences legally recognized by court as admissible evidence. About the Use of Enhancing Device In the case United States v. Kyllo the court ruled that the use of thermal imaging to gain information constitute a search.
The court ruled that obtaining any information by sense enhancing technology regarding interior of home that could have been obtained otherwise without forcible entry or physical entry into a constitutionality protected area, constitute a search. Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505,512. The ruling of the Supreme Court on United States v Kyllo was based on its previous ruling in the case United States V Katz. The precedence therefore about information obtain with the use of thermal imaging device constitute a search was already established.
Thus, the use of the officer of the enhancing device constitutes a search, and an intrusion into an area constitutionally protected. The enhancing device if it would be allowed would virtually place every in police surveillance and arrest could be made on every one based on information obtain unknowingly from the individual subject of police search. The issue here is the erosion of the individual privacy of life which is constitutionally protected.
The use of the device will also become a precedence of the use of more advance technology that could monitor all individual human activities thereby putting everyone on watch against their own will. Work Cited Cavendish Publishing Staff, 2004. Evidence Law Card. UK: Routledge Cavendish Grabosky, P. N. & Smith, RG. 1998. Crime in the Digital Age: Controlling Telecommunications and Cyberspace. New Jersey, USA: Transaction Publishers Przybylski, R. , Merny, M. , Martin, C. & Travis, J. 1997 Trends and Issues 1997: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. USA: Diane Publishing.