FOR SCIENCE GURU ONLY plus one

ABSTRACT

According to the facts of the scenario‚ the two crime suspects named Steve Chapman (Suspect #1) and Keith Hopkins (Suspect #2) committed their crimes and fled the crime scene before police officers made their arrival. Luke Roberts, victim #1, was shot in the head and pronounced deceased at the scene. Mr. Liam O’Neil, victim #2, was one of the crime victims that survived the crime incident. He was able to describe the two suspects, Keith Hopkins and Steve Chapman, to the police officers. The two suspects were later arrested and taken into police custody after being positively identified based on the surviving victim’s description. The following will discuss how would discretion affect this particular case and if it would have changed the outcome from several perspectives.

It is also important to point out that according to the facts of the case scenario‚ it was only after the police interviewed Suspect 2‚ Keith Hopkins‚ that they were able to get the information regarding the property that they both stole during the robbery as well as the gun that was used in executing the robbery. The police interview revealed that the stolen property from both victims was hidden in a laundry basket in Hopkin’s bedroom within his home. He also stated that Suspect 1, Steve Chapman, hid the gun used in the robbery in the attic of his house under the insulation (CTUO, 2016). It is also suspected that there may also be additional evidence in the house, but Keith Hopkins refused to give any further information and denied consent to retrieve the items within the home(s).

Under the circumstances illustrated in this scenario‚ the two criminal suspects are protected by the Fourth Amendment. With that said, the police would not go ahead to search and seize the stolen property plus the gun used in committing the crime‚ without obtaining a search warrant from a magistrate. This is because according to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution‚ every U.S. Citizen has a right to be secure in their houses‚ persons‚ effects‚ and paper against any unreasonable seizures and searches. This right cannot or should not be violated or no warrants issued unless there is a probable cause that is generally supported by oath of affirmation. The warrant must say or clearly describe the particular place(s) that will be searched as well as what property or person that needs to be seized (Galiano, 2011). It is important to point out that the police officers did not apprehend the two suspects during the robbery act that went wrong. But that the police officers arrested the two suspects after they had committed the crime upon matching the victim’s description, the admission and stated location(s) of the hidden stolen property and the gun used in the robbery by Keith Hopkins in Keith Hopkins’s home. This is a typical scenario for which a court issued search warrant is needed to be obtained in order to carry out a search and seizure of the stolen property and the gun from the suspects’ home(s). By obtaining a court ordered search warrant, the evidence retrieved will be admissible in court and not risk the possibility of the evidence not being admitted into evidence as exhibits before the court.

On the other hand‚ using discretion to get consent does not require an officer to have a search warrant for him/her to carry out a search and seize and individual or an individual’s property. It is important to point out that probable cause is a vital element that is always required to be demonstrated by the prosecution during a court trial for which an individual’s house was searched and property seized. The officers could have therefore searched the two suspects using their discretion if they could have found them in a number of different circumstances‚ which would generally give them the consent to carry out the search and seize the appropriate property.

One of such circumstances is plain view. Plain view refers to when there is a certain object connected with a crime‚ which has been committed by a suspect‚ can generally be seen by the involved police officer from a given place where that officer has a right to be. In this case‚ if the officers could have stopped and frisked the two suspects and found the stolen property and the gun in their car or in Steve Chapman’s possession‚ the police officers could not have needed any search warrant‚ but they would have used their discretion to get the consent to seize these property. The second circumstances where the officers would have had carried out a search and seizure of the suspects’ property would have been if the scenario involving a hot pursuit. A hot pursuit normally takes place when police officers are chasing crime suspects and know where the crime suspects are. This would change this case scenario in that if the police had arrived at the crime scene while the two suspects were still carrying out the robbery‚ they were then chased by the police and then hid themselves at Hopkins’ apartment. Only then would the police officers would have gotten the consent from their discretion and they could have carried out the search and seize property that would have been used as evidence against the two suspects in the court of law. These are the two circumstances that are applicable to this scenario and could have changed the scenario if discretion was to be used by police officers to get the legally required consent to search and seize the property of the suspects.

It is important to point out that a state attorney has prosecutorial discretion. This would allow the prosecution to look at all the involved circumstances of this case; which may include the criminal record of the suspect‚ the suspects’ ability to show remorse to the victims of the crime‚ and the suspects’ corporation during the process in deciding whether to charge as well as what to charge (Hall, 2014). It is thus important to point out that in this case scenario‚ the state attorney could have used his/her discretion to charge the two suspects with charges that are less or more severe that the charges that had been levied by the involved police officers. The state attorney would have to file charges for the specific crimes for which the involved police officers arrested the two suspects‚ or the state attorney could use his/her consent to decide to drop certain charges for which the two suspects had been charged by the involved police officers. For instance‚ considering the fact that Suspect 2 was able to show cooperation‚ he did show remorse for the victims‚ and since he had no past criminal history‚ the state attorney could use his/her discretion to charge him with robbery instead of aggravated robbery. One of the aspects of prosecutorial discretion is that it provides a state attorney with some significant opportunity for mercy and leniency in a criminal justice system that may be marked by harsh and broad criminal laws.

In a case involving a suspect that was a gate away driver‚ it would be better to use discretion as a leverage against such suspect because the suspect was not involved in the actual crime. It could be fact that the suspect could have been carjacked by the actual offenders of the crime and been forced to drive away from the crime scene to enable the actual suspects to avoid arrest. If the state attorney was to decide not to seek death penalty charge for this case‚ then the severity of the sentences of the two suspects could significantly be reduced. This is because Suspect #1, Steve Chapman, could receive a life sentence in prison‚ while the sentence for Suspect #2, Keith Hopkins, could range from a fine of $5‚000 to about 5 years in prison considering that he has no past criminal record and his ability to show remorse to crime victims. From a corrections view, discretion would not be applied to this case. Correctional facilities, prisons, and any other formal name used to describe a prison, houses the criminals and the presiding judge of the courts decides what level of security prison or correctional facility the convicted offender is sentenced to. This could range from a minimal to a maximum security facility. Determined by a judge during sentencing proceedings, the offender may be able to be in a “community” setting and share prison cells with other prison mates or they may be in solitary confinement with no interaction with other inmates. Certain prisons may give “rewards” to those prisoners for “good” behavior.

References: