Assignment 3

SCMT 371 September 24, 2023 Assignment 3 The exclusionary rule was created to prevent law enforcement from illegally seizing property during searches (Nemeth, 2012).Citizens' rights are safeguarded under the rule
whenever they come into contact with public law enforcement. In criminal proceedings, the exclusionary rule is used when there has been a search that does not comply with the Fourth Amendment's protections. It mandates, in accordance with the Fourth Amendment, that any evidence that was gathered improperly be thrown out of court. The Supreme Court decided in the case Burke v. McDowell that the exclusionary rule only applied to searches conducted by government agents (Nemeth, 2012). Although it may seem that the rule of exclusion would have minimal effect on private security, case studies have demonstrated that evidence gathered illegally by private security was excluded from court proceedings. In the case of United States v. Day (U.S. v. Day, 2010), private security agents performed a "terry search" that led to the discovery of marijuana and the subsequent detention of the subject. When there is probable cause to believe that an individual is armed and dangerous, a thorough search is a reasonable protective search for weapons. This kind of search may happen even if there isn't enough evidence for an arrest. After the thorough search and detention, the private security officers questioned the defendant without first giving him his Miranda rights, which rendered his comments inadmissible. U.S. v. Day (2010) found that armed security guards in Virginia were considered agents of the state since they were vetted, trained, and subject to disciplinary action by the state's Criminal Justice Services Board. If private security agents are found to have operated on behalf of a state or government, they may be subject to the exclusionary rule. Mall security arrested and searched a young guy called Luis Santiago after he got into a brawl, and his case is now known as State of New Mexico v. Santiago. Mall security conducted a check and found packets of cocaine hidden inside a prescription bottle, so they detained Santiago until state police could arrive. It was unclear from the available data whether the narcotic bottle had been opened before or after the arrival of the
state police. This raised serious doubts about the admissibility of the evidence since it was unclear who it was gathered for, the state or the company. They considered the mall securities activity was directly tied to the interests of the state, and therefore the court found that the evidence was inadmissible due to the search's violation of Santiago's 4th amendment rights. The courts have acknowledged, in certain cases, that a private citizen's search and seizure may be attributed to the government. It's possible that the exclusionary rule and the Fourth Amendment might come into play in this situation. As explained in State v. Santiago (2009), courts use the "state action" approach to examine whether a private actor's disputed activity may be reasonably seen as if it came directly from the State. Since Santiago's arrest was for a brawl and not stealing, mall security had no right to look for proof of theft. The cocaine bottle did nothing to protect the company's bottom line or advance the company's goals. In light of this, "these acts indicate an intention to assist law enforcement efforts by securing evidence of a drug crime" (State v. Santiago, 2009). Several criteria may be used to establish a connection between private and government entities for the purposes of applying the exclusionary rule. There are two factors to consider in this case: first, whether or not the government "knew of and acquiesced in the intrusive conduct," and second, whether or not "the party performing the search intended to assist law enforcement efforts or to further his own ends" (State v. Santiago).Given that private security firms perform potentially lethal, all-encompassing activities identical to those of public police and, more often than not, in support of state and federal functions, it is perplexing that they are not often subject to the same norms and regulations. Without proper checks and balances in place to control the private sector, people' rights may be violated.
Uploaded by NadiaP6 on