Some thoughts on the warrantless search of Mr. Christopher Jones’ home

Dear Editor

The recent warrantless search or attempt to search the home of Mr. Christopher Jones for alleged stolen government property (barber chairs), has generated public interest. Indeed recently I read a letter in the Kaieteur News that sought to speak to this issue, by mainly referring to what obtains in the USA.
The conditions in the USA under which a warrantless search by the police of a citizen’s home can be legally undertaken are clearly articulated in the book “Police & Society.” written by Roberg, Novak, Cordner and Smith. On this issue they offer two primary conditions under which a search is allowable by law. These are (a) the plain view doctrine, (b) the open field doctrine.

The plain view doctrine centers on three premises (1) The police must have prior justification for being at the scene, (2) The evidence must be in plain view, and police cannot take action to expose to public view concealed parts of the premises or what it contains, (3) the items seized must be immediately apparent as evidence.

The open field doctrine simply states that items situated in an open field are not protected by the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizures.
Schmallerger, perhaps the most prolific writer on issues of criminal justice here in the USA, adds another condition under which warrantless search can be conducted by the police. He refers tells us to the doctrine of “exigent circumstances searches or emergency searches.” Schmallerger defines such a search as “a search conducted by the police without a warrant, which is justified on the basis of some immediate and overriding need, such as public safety, the likely escape of a dangerous suspect, or the removal or destruction of evidence.”

The above represents the legal conditions existing in the USA for carrying out a warrantless search. However, because the police has wide discretionary powers, the police actions are not always confined to the strict dictate of law.

For example, one might have, on at least one occasion, violated a traffic law and was stopped by the police. On explaining why the violation occurred, the police allowed you to proceed on your business, after merely giving you a warning.

Now, in the example above, the law says you should be charged, however you escape with a mere warning, because the police used the discretionary powers that comes with his/her job. In the book “Criminal Justice Ethics” written by Cyndi Banks, which has become required reading by some universities in the USA, the writer says this “In performing their policing duties, police officers are able to exercise a high degree of discretion. This means that they have broad freedom to make decisions about how to act in given situations.”

If we apply the notion of police discretion to the warrantless search (or attempt to search) of Mr. Jones’ home, the question then becomes – would it not have been best for the police to use their discretionary powers in dealing with this situation?

For example, if we subject the Jones situation to analysis based on use of Schmallerger’s take on the matter. The following questions, from a discretionary perspective, loom large:
a) Was there was a threat to public safety? b) Couldn’t concerns about Mr. Jones escaping have been dealt with, without carrying out a warrantless search? For example couldn’t his home be placed under surveillance? C) Since the police could easily keep his home under surveillance, how possible would it have been for him to remove evidence? D) Could Mr. Jones possibly destroy the evidence – a barber chair, while forced to keep all of its component parts in his home, by the fact that his home was or could be under surveillance?

Looked at from this perspective, is it not possible that applying their discretionary powers would have deescalated the situation and led to a more acceptable outcome for all? Wouldn’t the police have been seen in a better light by the public if such an approach was adopted?

Yours truly,
Claudius Prince