Constitutionally, these provisions lay down that the privacy of a person shall not be violated unreasonably by the State, unless there exists a just and probable cause for necessitating the issuance of a Warrant to search and seize, and which must be specific in all its particulars. This test of reasonableness of suspicion, which would make a search and seizure operation within the aforementioned Constitutional boundaries, has been extrapolated and deliberated at length in three landmark Supreme Court cases Aguilar v. State of Texas, Spinelli v. United States and the most recent decision in State of Illinois v. Gates.
Aquilars case was the first case where the Supreme Court laid down a standard for assessing the reasonableness of suspicion (which would necessitate the issuance of a warrant), especially when such suspicion has been aroused on the basis of information received from a tip-off i.e. a third party. Accordingly the Court stated that such a warrant could only be issued by a competent magistrate when the investigation officer is able to show that prima facie, the information is reliable and that the credibility of the informant is satisfactory (called the two-prong test). Otherwise, any evidence procured without obtaining such a warrant may not be allowed during the trial. In fact the Court in that case invalidated the warrant issued by the magistrate stating that the twin test for determining the reasonable suspicion, which in turn would enable the warrant to be properly issued, was not satisfied. This decision of the Supreme Court resonated and was affirmed by the same court in Spinelli v. United States where it was categorically laid down that for a valid search and seizure warrant to be issued, the investigating officer must be able to show the Court that the two-prongs i.e. credibility of the information and that of the informant is sufficiently satisfactory. According to the reasoning offered by Harlan J. while giving the judgment, such a test must be strictly adhered to so that the State (the police, federal officers etc. etc.) does not violate the privacy and sanctity of a persons home in an arbitrary manner, which in turn would be a blatant violation of the rights of citizens enshrined under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
While both Aguilars and Spinellis cases upheld an individuals right to privacy, which could only be infringed if the two-prong test was satisfied, correspondingly it became difficult for the State to use evidence obtained from search and seizure operations, against offenders during trial. Thus, it was increasingly felt that the two-prong test, while laudatory for the purpose it sought to achieve, curtailed officers powers to gather evidence against suspected offenders. Consequently, the two-prong theory was rejected in favor of a more totality of circumstances approach in State of Illinois v. Gates. Under this test, the Court held that so long as it could be made out to the satisfaction of a competent magistrate that, with regard to the underlying facts and circumstances of the case, there existed a reasonable suspicion that an offence is being committed, the warrant (and hence the evidence obtained through it) would be valid even if the twin tests of reliability of information and reliability of the informant are not strictly satisfied. This generic view has now been accepted as the norm in such cases and while there is only a very thin line separating the two-prong test from this totality test, this interpretation has given greater scope to investigating officers to pursue suspected offenders without having to worry about violating constitutional rights.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment