Laws and Corrections the Proposed

Laws and Corrections

The Proposed Consent Decree concerning the case of Jack Jones and Joe Johnson does not adequately addresses the situation, borrowing from the legal precedent of the Appellate Court Decision from the case of Carter v. State. Specifically, the Proposed Consent Decree fails to address the overriding issue, namely that the defendant is entitled to a new trial on the basis that the evidence that is being used by the State was obtained through illegal means. The case of Carter v. State provides the legal precedent needed to arrive at this conclusion; the two cases are similar in that they both involve unlawful cell searches that compromised the integrity of the evidence that was used to convict the defendant. Moreover, there is significant reason to believe that the unlawful searching of the defendant's cell resulted in the state acquiring information to which they were not privy.

Although it is clear that the cell search was conducted in an improper manner that failed to respect the personal property of the two inmates, it is still ambiguous as to why the $500 sum is to be awarded to each of the defendants. While the television antenna and the sneaker were damaged during the cell search, a total of $500 each is presumably in substantial excess of what would be necessary to replace the two items. The Proposed Consent Decree offers no justification as to how this figure was arrived at, nor does it provide any legal precedent for arriving at such a sum. Consequently, the Proposed Consent decree is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. First, it is under-inclusive because there is not sufficient justification provided for including the $500 fine. In order to justify the fine, it would be necessary to provide some explanation as to exactly what the money is to go toward, as well as why it is necessary for there to be a fine in the first place.

Presumably, the justification for the $500 fine would not invoke the case of Carter v. State, which does not involve any such fine, but instead would draw from there being a violation in the search procedure directive. The procedure directive outlines procedures for routine and random cell searches. For random searches, the staff commander must direct the search; inmates must be removed, along with bedding. Appliances, footwear, books, magazines, and papers should all be inspected. In this case, the cell search was randomly conducted with the blessing of the Shift Commander; however, the Shift Commander was absent in the actual search, which would stand in violation of proper cell search decorum. Additionally, the fact that the Shift Commander was absent from the actual search would suggest that he is responsible for the breach in search decorum, but he is not mentioned as being culpable in either the situation or the Proposed Consent Decree.

While the shift commander should perhaps be more strongly implicated in the Proposed Consent Decree, the fact that he is called upon to direct future searches attests to the importance of his responsibility. However, the Proposed Consent Decree should require the presence of the shift commander in order to prevent future instances of misconduct from taking place, and to this extent the Decree is under-inclusive. Meanwhile, the stipulation that the inmates should be placed immediately outside the cell is over-inclusive; not only is it unnecessary for the inmates to be present for the search, but their presence could lead to verbal or physical conflict between the inmates and the officers conducting the cell search. In the Appellate Court Decision of Carter v. State, there is no mention that the inmates must be present for the search, and the misconduct that occurred by the two officers occurred as a result of their own negligence rather than a malicious incident of harassment directed toward the inmates. There is no mention in the description of the situation that the officers had any intention of inflicting harm on the inmates, and while they should not have confiscated the paper and should have taken responsibility for harming the radio and the television antenna, it is not mentioned either implicitly or explicitly that there was any intentionality behind their behavior.

Ultimately, the Proposed Consent Decree focuses on proper procedures for cell searches at the expense of the main issue, which is that the defendant is entitled to a new trial, and that the sheet of paper that was going to be used as evidence against him is not admissible. The description of the situation explicitly states that the sheet of paper that was obtained by the officers was used as evidence in the subsequent murder trial, and that Jack Jones was in fact convicted of first degree murder. While it is true that the inmates cannot reasonably expect to withhold their privacy, they are entitled to keep their private documents, particularly those that have been provided for by their legal counsel. Moreover, the case of Carter v. State mentions that the prosecution cannot confiscate a document during a cell search and then use the document to their benefit during a trial. While it could be argued that the stipulation in the Proposed Consent Decree that all inmate property must be treated with respect suggests that such items cannot be confiscated, this is not explicitly stated.

The cell search that was conducted by Officer Anderson and Sgt. Belker was necessitated out of a belief that inmate Joe Johnson had been selling contraband cigarettes. Thus, the investigation should have focused on locating evidence related to the presence of contraband cigarettes. Indeed, during their cell search, Officer Anderson and Sgt. Belker located contraband cigarette papers inside of one of the potato chip bags. Based on the Proposed Consent Decree, the contraband cigarette papers should have been confiscated, as it is mentioned that "Any item of contraband shall be confiscated." In fairness to the two officials who conducted the cell search, it had not previously been established that contraband items were to be confiscated, and to this end, the Proposed Consent Decree correctly identifies a salient issue that is pertinent to future cell searches.

The fact that the Officer Anderson and Sgt. Belker confiscated the sheet of paper while failing to confiscate the cigarette wrapper that was actually related to the premise for which the search was conducted suggests that perhaps there was an ulterior motive at work for their search. If the search had in fact been directed toward locating contraband materials, it should have focused more directly on Joe Johnson and not on Jack Jones, who was not even suspected of being responsible for the selling of contraband items. It is established in the description of the situation that Officer Anderson's cousin is the Staff Investigator, who gave it to the Assistant State's attorney who was in charge of handling the murder case. The fact that Officer Anderson had a personal relationship distinct from his profession as a law enforcement official suggests that he may have conducted the cell search under the auspices of looking for contraband cigarettes while in fact searching for incriminating evidence that could be used by the state to convict Jack Jones of first-degree murder. For example, Officer Anderson's cousin could have privately communicated with him, asking him if it would be possible to search the cell to locate any evidence that could be used to assist the prosecution in their case against Jack Jones.

The Proposed Consent Decree does partially address the situation since the initiatives that are enacted would prevent a similarly improper cell search from taking place in the future. Specifically, the wording of the document focuses the search on being directed toward locating materials related to contraband items. However, the wording of the Proposed Consent Decree is also too ambiguous as it mentions that:

"All inmate books, magazines, and other papers will be closely inspected to ensure they are within the limit for paper materials (1 cubic foot maximum), they are not being used to hide contraband, and they do not contain evidence of a planned escape, disturbance, or other crime"

There are no grounds for suspecting that the sheet of paper that the officers confiscated from Jack Jones was in any way related to hiding contraband, and the paper was within the limit for paper materials. However, the wording of the Proposed Consent Decree leaves ambiguity as to whether the sheet contained evidence of a planned disturbance or other crime, and indeed, the sheet was used as evidence in the trial convicting Jack Jones of first-degree murder. The Proposed Consent Decree is over-inclusive in that it should drop the final clause of the provision, since it is not legally acceptable to confiscate a material if it contains evidence of a planned escape, disturbance, or other crime. At the very least, a clause should be added protecting the inmates' rights in the event that the sheet of paper was provided for them by their legal counsel; as it stands, the Proposed Consent Decree would not protect Jack Jones and he would still have been unlawfully convicted of first-degree murder.

One of the additional oversights in the Proposed Consent Decree is that it does not address the sensitive matter of cell searches of two-person cells that are focused on one inmate. The cell search conducted by Officer Anderson and Sgt. Belker was conducted in an attempt to locate contraband cigarettes that had been sold by Joe Johnson; however, they were still able to search all of Jack Jones' materials. The Proposed Consent Decree is under-inclusive in that it does not make any mention of protecting the inmate who is not the target of the cell search. As it stands, it is still possible for the cell search to be conducted under the premise of implicating one of the inmates while instead focusing on a separate inmate.