Essay Writing Help on The Future of Law in Private Security

In both cases of Zelinski and Buswell, I note the different merits from the case arguments. In State v. Buswell, it provides that the argument of exclusionary rules should be applied based on the application of the Fourth Amendment relating to unreasonable searches and seizures. During the cases, the jury sought to determine the nature of search conducted on the motor vehicles and the nature of its seizure by the private security personnel. The court argued that even though the evidence used in criminal prosecution was obtained by private individuals, there are strong motives and involvement of the police agencies making the application of the Fourth Amendment valid. Thus, the case is significant in explaining how sufficient government involvement could turn private search into governmental search. In such situations, the court of appeals has the power to suppress such evidence. Access to information has created a heated debate among the government agencies over the provisions of private security. Today, many network security cameras are used in gathering information. The case was relevant in explaining the admissibility of such information as evidence in courts (Nemeth, 2012). In State v. Zelinski, the defendant had been guilty of possessing heroin, which is an illegal dug. They filed for a proposition to repress the evidence, but it was denied. Penal code provisions given the store owners mandate to arrest and detain the appellants. The question of them acting with the power and legal capacity also remains. Therefore, the arguments of the case help to understand the nature of the limits of the authority of persons to search and confiscate information.

 In the future, I think the cases would be able to change the current legal precedents relating to the legality of searches and seizures. For instance, with the growing surveillance measures that are acceptable today, it would be very different to understand the legality of the information provided from the social media and internet. The growing technology has given people the power to examine the different aspects in the society posing great discrepancy on the legal frameworks. In both cases, the defendants question the admissibility and capacity of the evidence used for their convection. In future, such evidence would be likely admissible and acceptable in the law courts. This relates to the actions undertaken pursuant to the statutory regulations and obligations to promote state interests (Ross, 2012). Such efforts would establish the appropriate procedures of regulating private interests of the people in the society. It is also stated in the common law provisions on determining whether persons are guilty or not guilty in certain cases. Therefore, the extent of data and information use would transform in future making it easy to obtain strong and reliable evidence. 

 In summary, there are various conclusions in the cases that appear to be contrary to the law. In the cases, it can be seen that the private information was connected to governmental actions and thus, inadmissible in the court. I think the evidence was admissible in court as it was restricted under the Fourth Amendment. Also, the legal capacity of private individuals to detain persons also comprises a violation of the freedom and fundamental rights of the people. Every person has a right to free will and expression. Thus, the conclusions that the private individuals would be allowed to detain other free citizens was legally unacceptable. The impacts of technology should be major concern in future legal proceedings, as people can obtain increased evidence from the social media and internet.

References

Nemeth, P.C. (2012). Private security and the law, 4th edition. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann Press.

Ross, L. D. (2012). Civil liability in criminal justice, 6th edition. London, UK: Routledge.