Petitioner, Slim Workman, was convicted on numerous charges related to the death of his roommate, Mr. Thompkins. The petitioner (Slim Workman)argues that cases concerning Weeks v. United States, (1914) and Mapp v. Ohio, (1961) require consent to search or a warrant issued before a thorough search of the property. In such case of Brown v. Mississippi, (1936) and Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) that a Miranda warning requirement is due after an arrest and before questioning to protect the rights against self-incriminating. The petitioner asserts that the case of 4McDonald v. City of Chicago, (2010) gives all citizens the right to bear arms. The petitioner (Slim Workman)further argues that in the case of Powell v. Alabama (1932) states that all individuals have a fair trial and the right to counsel.
On December 24th, Ocean County Deputy’s made entry into an apartment at the request of the building manager, due to built up mail and newspapers and no active movement within the apartment 3-C. Once deputies made there way in the apartment, an elderly man (Mr. Thompkins)is found lying face down on the floor. Deputies then dispatch for a medical examiner and at that point the secured the scene. As the crime scene is secure, the deputy conducts a thorough search of the premises and discovers valuable materials such jewelry, coat, and a World War caliber automatic pistol, which are seized and logged as property. At which point Mr. Thompkins body was turned over where an apparent bullet hole was observed. The apartment manager states he has been trying to locate the roommate of Mr. Thompkins. The roommate (Petitioner, Slim Workman) is found at Sunnyside Bar and taken into custody by the Ocean County SWAT team. An officer then tells petitioner(Slim Workman).
“That it would be better for him if he confessed. And that if he waited to call a lawyer, they would make it hard for him, at which time the petitioner admitted to killing his roommate with the pistol that was illegal to possess under the county ordinance.” ([email protected]) At the precinct, Workman complained of needing medical attention and was denied.
Probable cause to make entry without a warrant is acceptable in this case, but a warrant or consent from a person who resides in the apartment is needed to perform a thorough search of the property.
This case exhibits the same violation as in (Weeks v. United States, 1914), which states that, the “Fourth Amendment protects people, their bodies, homes, papers, and effects against all unreasonable searches and seizures.”
(Mapp v. Ohio, 1961), which states the “Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizures is inadmissible in courts. If the federal exclusionary rule prohibits the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence, this rule applies to the states.” The automatic pistol, in this case, would fall under the guise of the exclusionary rule .
As stated per (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966), “the Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination in all settings. It is clear to this court the confession was coerced when the plaintiff is told, “that it would be better for him if he confessed. And that if he waited to call a lawyer, they would make it hard for him.”
As shown in (Brown v. Mississippi, 1936), “whether convictions rest exclusively upon a confession when forced by officers of the state by callousness and forcefulness, are reliable with the due process of law required by the Fourteenth Amendment.” The coerced confession of the petitioner prior to being mirandized is apparent that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated in this case.
Right to counsel is a right granted to citizens through the Fifth Amendment when an individual is mirandized and again in the Sixth Amendment, which states the accused, has the right to an attorney if they so choose. A violation has occurred when either the Fifth or Sixth amendments does not follow protocol. In the (Powell v. Alabama, 1932), it is stated that “the defendants did not have a fair trial and this right then denied due process of law.” The petitioner in this case, was also denied a fair trial as evidence was used against the petitioner is unlawfully seized, and the use of a coerced confession without the presence of an attorney. Here is a violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. There is no due process in this case.
1. The Second amendment allows all citizens the right to bear arms.
2. (McDonald v. City of Chicago, 2010), “There are three filed suits against respondent municipalities in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that municipal ordinances banning handgun possession violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.” The court stated that the Second Amendment has safeguarded the right to possess and have arms.
This court is not sure of the charges against the Mr. Workman, we may only assume possession of a firearm is one of the violations. In this case, per (Dr. [email protected]), “Ocean County had a county ordinance on the books banning all handguns from private residences. The Deputy and Sergeant both know the ordinance is in violation of recent Supreme Court decisions
This court would like to discuss the possibility of other violations briefly:
1. Mishandling of evidence: The World War caliber multiple deputies handled the pistol without gloves. Not using gloves is a basic forensics no no. These officers had then contaminated the evidence of the homicide.
2. Medical treatment: Denial of medical treatment when the petionor was groaning in pain from an ulcer. The petitioner’s right to medical attention falls under the Eighth Amendment of cruel and unusual treatment.
3. Noted Valuables: The pistol is protected by the 2nd amendment right which states The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.