A Case Analysis
Guilty or not guilty?
 |
| Photo from: www.unitedliberty.org
BUSINESS LAW
Writer: Randello M. Braga
Essay Writer ID No. 416522
Reference Book: Business Law Today Text and Summarized Cases
10th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller
This short article is in relation to Exhibit 1A.3 A Sample Court Case on page 31 of the above-mentioned book entitled United States vs. Jones. It is understood that the government is supposed to protect all the rights and privileges of its citizens and at the same time, prosecute those that are found guilty of a crime. It turned out that The Fourth Amendment, in this case, became an instrument to charge Antoine Jones, a nightclub owner in the District of Columbia, with drug trafficking. The phrase “unlawful search” speaks for itself. Why is it that the prosecution did not consider Jones’ rights against self-incrimination in the first place? Placing the device underneath his wife’s car makes the scenario more complicated because the latter’s participation in the alleged illegal trade is not yet proven. Mrs. Jones could now be considered an accomplice to the alleged crime that her husband has committed even though there was no due process yet. The procedure of placing the GPS device is also a violation to the right to privacy of the Jones couple. If they wanted to conduct an investigation, there could be a lot of options to choose from. Why not utilize the talent and skill of detectives to monitor Antoine Jones’ activities and whereabouts? If there is really a strong conviction that the nightclub is used as a front to sell illegal drugs, then why not ask the judge to issue a search warrant so that the local police could conduct a legal search of the business establishment?
There is really a need to review the Fourth Amendment because the evidence to pin down Antoine Jones for drug trafficking was obtained after a clear violation, not only of the law itself but also of the couple’s human rights. The drastic action violated the legal phrase A person is considered innocent unless proven guilty.
We understand the authorities’ actions in upholding the law, but what we don’t get is the idea on the abuse of power and discretion by the high authorities. The burden of proof or the prima facie evidence was obtained only after a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.
There is really a question of credibility with regards to how the law was imposed to the Jones couple. We are not in favor of what they have done. We just express the sympathy that if the law can be manipulated this way, how about those that are still on the process of being investigated? Are they also going to undergo the same thing? The answer is probably a yes because according to this article, the decision of the Supreme Court is legal and binding to other lower and appellate courts.
The Latin maxim dura lex sed lex applies to this case. The law may be harsh but it is the law. The word “harsh” is, therefore, to be considered a way to serve justice?
|
Comments
Post a Comment