Unjustified questioning and searches were common and caused tension in the pre-revolutionary America. Not every arrest, annexation or search should be made pursuant to a legitimately effected warrant. The Supreme Court specifies that police might conduct searches or arrests without necessarily producing a warrant so long as the circumstances justifies and/or necessitates such seizures or arrests (exigent circumstance). Consequently, felonies and searches incident to legalized arrest are excluded from the 4th amendment.
In a legal proceeding, equity between the victim and the offender and the rule of law must be upheld. The present form of jurisprudence exists to inform about imperative aspects in criminal justice including their rights, responsibilities and trial forms such as trial by compurgation and trial by battle. Commonly, police officers must produce a warrant of arrest when arresting a suspect and prosecution action follows unless the charge(s) against the individual are dismissed. The Miranda requires that the police inform a person in custody of their right to remain silent during a criminal proceeding and inform them that anything said might be used as evidence against them in a court. The chapter presents the case of North v. Russell where the supreme court upheld a layperson’s decision to sentence North to 30 days imprisonment for drunk driving. It considered that the layperson was justified to preside over the case due to inaccessibility of higher courts.
Chapter 2 explores the rights, responsibilities and rules governing the use of engine-powered machines and roads. It specifies the occasions under which the police are authorized to conduct an arrest or seizure of a vehicle and its occupants.