The homicide happened on October 4, 2009, where Marco Nieves a six-year-old child was killed by Michael Patino, Trisha’s boyfriend. Marco’s ribs were broken, and on the time of arriving at the hospital, he was confirmed dead. Phone evidence from text messages sent by Michael Patino was the primary evidence collected. Although Michael did not consent about the phone messages and the sergeants push a button to view the text messages sent which is a form of breaching privacy (Case of State v. Patino, para 2). Patino accidentally kills Marco claiming that he acted stupid making it difficult to rule out the degree of the crime. In this paper, I will give portray my understanding of the police roles, the court of law, and corrections regarding the case of state v. Patino.

The criminological theory in state v. Patino connected with the behavior of the defendant is the Differential Association Theory. According to this theory, a crime is considered using explanations of emulated behavior originating from friends, families, or relatives. These explanations can either be harmful or helpful regarding law violations.  Maybe Michael is rational, or he has been brought up in an abusive household. During Patino, he may have been abused by his father forcing him to grow believing that the abuse was a form of tough love to make him tough, “fruit of the poisonous tree” (Case of State v. Patino, para 10). This Patino strict upbringing makes him use the same kind of discipline upon Trisha’s son which result in the death of Marco.

The lower court legal reasoning in supporting the defense cancel’s the motion to combat the cell phone evidence. The defendant confession is that the cell evidence was collected without the state laws. The defendant state that there was no conscious intention for the search to be conducted or a court order authorizing the search (Case of State v. Patino, para 5). Additionally, the defendant argues that according to the fourth amendment of the constitution, Patino has the right to privacy.

The supreme court decision was that viewing the cell phone messages did not confirm unreasonable search. Similarly, the supreme court added that taking control of the phone account being the property of Oliver and Michael did not have any power of the phone. Oliver consenting to message review on the phone was enough since it was her phone. Additionally, the supreme court ruled out that previous messages from Oliver’s phone acted as a reasonable cause to issue a search warrant to look for the devices from the apartment (Case of State v. Patino, para 6). Finally, the supreme court regarded the gathered proof, and the admission of the guilt to the Rhode Island Supreme as justifiable.

Law enforcement officers have a mandate to ensure that all their dealings are carried out as per the law. It’s part of their ethical responsibility to ensure that they deal with civilians as stated in the fourth amendment (Rivera & Ward, 2017). This amendment clearly says that seizures and searches should never be forced in the case where they have to deal with civilians. In this scenario, Patino v. State, the seizures and searches carried out by the law enforcement officials were within what the Fourth amendment states. The law enforcers had the right to carry out their investigations under Trisha’s consent. Although to some extent Sgt. Kite viewing the text message was wrong, it was significant to establish the course of the crime (Case of State v. Patino, para 2).

The degree of murder, in this case, is quite complicated. The degree of homicide is complicated with the first, second, and third degree of crime. Similarly, in this murder, there in involuntary and voluntary manslaughter. Also, jurisdiction is likely to reduce the case in a lesser class. First-degree murder is the most severe charge in murder. This degree is incorporated when the defendant had a plan to kill a victim and consented that the action taken will result in death. In addition to planning, a defendant can be accused of first-degree murder if the murder was conducted with an item of malice (Acland, 2018). For instance, poison and bomb can be classified as first-degree murder.

Punishment in first-degree murder mainly involves a death sentence. Contrary, second-degree murder occurs when murder committed is not premediated or deliberate. In this category of crime, it is clear that the defendant wanted to cause harm but not to the extent of killing leading to death. Second-degree murder punishment mainly involves jail term and in some severe cases can lead to a life sentence (Seibold, 2017). In summary, identifying the differences between this type of murder can be seen very simple until jurisdiction arises. Questions of intent and the evidence provided can cause difficulty in classifying this degree of crime.

Michael case was initially regarded as a first-degree murder but changed to second-degree murder due to the motions filed by the defense attorneys. First, the motions to suppress the phone evidence contributed to the change of the murder classification. Second, Michael Patino confessed to having been brought up in an abusive family as designated as a fruit from a poisonous tree. Also, the sergeant viewing text messages from Trisha’s phone was regarded as illegal and constituted an unlawful seizure and unlawful search. Additionally, the defense attorneys argued that the evidence collected and confessions were obtained from the unlawful search (Case of State v. Patino, para 10). Regarding the evidence provided, the supreme court judge ruled out the case as second-degree murder.

The correction department function to oversee the imprisonment of the sentenced offenders, factors determine the correction facility of the offenders, and the length of time to be served by the offenders. The time is determined by the nature of the crime committed (Clear, Reisig & Cole, 2018). During the hearing of Michael Patino jurisdiction, the trial jury considered him as a first-degree murderer. However, the trial jury regarded him accountable for the second-degree murder. The judge concluded that the accused should serve the highest life imprisonment sentence (Case of State v. Patino, para 10).

Regarding the nature of the crime committed by Michael Piano, he would serve his sentence in a maximum-security prison. The department of correction policy allows the offenders who are serving life imprisonment for community supervision after being confined for at least 20 years (Case of State v. Patino, para 9). The release to community supervision is accountable to examine the conduct of the criminal and the fulfillment of the set standards by the parole board. The victim is given the right to come and give impact statements during hearings by parole.

 
Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?