Remedies for Constitutional Violations, Essay Example

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 409 F.2d 718, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12867 (2d Cir. N.Y., 1969)

In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 409 F.2d 718, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12867 (2d Cir. N.Y., 1969) the application of criminal procedure at the level of the trial court to criminal suspect Bivens led to counter complaint that the federal agents whom conducted the search and seizure had violated the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. No warrant had been served on the investigation. Due process applied by the final U.S. Supreme Court decision; overturning the immunity defense denying Bivens request for compensatory remedies for illegal search and seizure resulted in remand to new trial for consideration.

As the Fourth Amendment procedure reveals, only partial consideration is necessary to sustain claim against the state. Tortfaesor appeal to criminal cases by plaintiffs whom have sustained unlawful arrest, often seek remedy to improper execution of warrant by law enforcement as higher court decision will be largely incumbent upon legal technicality rather than ardent ideological conjecture stemming from civil rights activism. Incomplete is equivalent to illegal, and basis for unlawful search and seizure is found upon repudiation of immunity in court. Hence, the final acts in Fourth Amendment search and seizure, ‘neutral and detached magistrate,’ and mitigation against unreasonable ‘delay’ by officers of the law was unnecessary to the Biven decision, as the scope of the adjudication is found in the abstained warrant even ‘good faith belief’ which typically supports allegations made by law enforcement.

Strict application of Fourth Amendment protections in the Supreme Court decision are resultant from evaluation of the appellate proceedings; substantiating the final motion for the Plaintiff, Bivens’ tortious claim for remedy against government actors as the case states federal cause of action under the Amendment for which damages are recoverable upon proof of injuries by the federal agents. Conclusively, the Supreme Court rightly concurred that the appellate court decision should be reversed as the defendants had acted unconstitutionally as evidenced by unwarranted, visual strip search, and arrest of Bivens a private citizen. Congress has not expressly authorized a particular remedy, and federal courts exercise their powers toward “essential” or indispensible” judicial relief at the behest of a litigant when those claims are evidentiary to violation of constitutionally protected interests of victims whom seek vindication.

References

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 409 F.2d 718, (U.S.App. LEXIS 12867 2d Cir. N.Y., 1969).

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics Decided on June 21, 1971; 403 US 388. American Civil Liberties Union. ProCon.org. http://aclu.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=3182

Criminal Procedure: 4th Amendment. Bar None Review Bar Exam Template. (2010). http://www.barnonereview.com/pdf/Criminal-Procedure-4th-Amend.pdf