Sample Solution

    In the case of Smith v. California, Mr. Smith challenges that his constitutional rights were violated when his next-door neighbor called the police to arrest him for burglary and possession of stolen property without the benefit of a warrant or search authorization. The language of prior decisions established by Weeks v. United States (1914) and Mapp v. Ohio (1961),

which are landmark Supreme Court cases concerning Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, suggest that any evidence obtained from an illegal search cannot be used in criminal proceedings. When debating the language of the Constitution, framers argued that Americans should not be subject to anything less than due process as set forth in the Fourth Amendment, which requires a warrant before government agents can conduct a search or seizure on one’s property - particularly in cases involving possible criminal activity. This is consistent with broader philosophical underpinnings found throughout our nation’s history such as Thomas Jefferson’s famous metaphor “The right to freedom being a gift from God; it is not in our power to alienate this gift and voluntarily become slaves." In other words, Americans must be adequately protected from overreaching government interference while preserving their civil liberties under law including protection against unlawful searches or seizures performed without warrants or probable cause – regardless whether they are suspected criminals or otherwise innocent individuals seeking redress for grievances suffered at the hands of government actors. Furthermore, major philosophical arguments set forth by the U.S Supreme Court in Weeks v United States (1914) and Mapp v Ohio (1961) provide further guidance on how courts should examine such cases as Smith v California where there is alleged violation of Constitutional rights under Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures without due process - namely through legal warrants authorized by magistrates upon reviewable evidence demonstrating probable cause for suspicion underlying said investigation into criminal activities involving individuals like Mr Smith whose perceived guilt was based solely on circumstantial evidence producible only via intrusion upon private property space belonging to him thus necessitating strict adherence oftentimes referred to as “the exclusionary rule" aimed at preventing abuse of governmental powers meant to protect citizens from injustice born out fear yet lacking tangible proof so fundamental within framework American justice system guided both moral code US Constitution itself as well social forces outside courtrooms bringing up sense fairness associated with every citizen equivalent peruvian human suffering regardless race gender socioeconomical class background given even accused criminals entitled same degree respect granted all other persons society terms application law enforcement mechanisms according letter spirit tenets underpinning foundation nation founded name equal justice everyone regardless individual circumstances especially those related inherent bias often leading false convictions ruin lives innocent parties never regained simply because lack due diligence part authorities trying stop bad guys end sometimes taking liberties beyond permitted certain more minor offences . To conclude, therefore, it appears clear that Mr Smith did indeed have his constitutional rights violated when he was arrested without a warrant given absence reasonable basis proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt required specification procedural safeguards provided Fourth Amendment before state action allowed restrict privacy interests another person potential detriment reputation actual loss health financial wellbeing etc result unjustified actions taken part representatives public serving interest greater good whole crucial guarantee safety security every single American regardless ethnicity beliefs religion motivation behind behavior attributable thereto recognized nonetheless require judicial determination extent these infringements occurred represented present instance order uphold moral principles liberty freedom formed bedrock document shaped sixty years since last amendment ratified Bill Rights applicable even universally accepted situations suspect crimes committed wake instances such nature deeply rooted values enshrined democracy understand full implications holding accountable those transgressing laws authority tasked safeguarding justice behalf entire population ultimately reach decision satisfactory all involved parties involved ensuring proper balance proportionality relationship citizenry state maintain order stability enjoyed generations come after us moving forward promise brighter future gratifying obligation serve people