On the above date and time Officer Runge and I responded to 6331 Wilkins Street, reference a warrant arrest. Before arriving on scene, I provided dispatch with the defendant's name, Christopher Luis Pagan. Pagan had an active VOP warrant out of Pasco, County (warrant #2016MM003832MMAXWS). Shortly after, Officer Hartmann arrived on scene for backup. Officer Runge and I approached the residence and I observed a blind to the residence window that was partially open. I observed the defendant laying in his bed with the light on. It was the defendant's bedroom window located North of the front of the doorway. I knocked on the window and shouted "Chris" twice. I then heard "yeah, what do you need." Unaware if the defendant knew he had a warrant …show more content…
The defendant then turned the bedroom light out and stated " I will after I put my kids to bed." When the defendant opened the front door I recognized him from multiple previous encounters. The defendant stood at the door and he refused to come out of the doorway of the residence after several requests. My intention was to have the defendant come out and close the front door out of respect for his wife and children before I detained him. However, the defendant continued to refuse to come out from the doorway. I then advised the defendant that he had a warrant for his arrest and he was being detained. I reached for the defendant's left arm to detain him and he resisted my effort by forcefully pulling away while he retreated backwards. I again reached for the defendant's left wrist and got a hold of it. The defendant continued to resist while pulling me inside of the residence while I had a grip of his wrist. I gave the defendant several more lawful commands to stop resisting and to come outside and place his hands behind of his back. However; the defendant continued to resist as he fell to the ground after Officer Hartmann reached to attempt to gain control of his right
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
On June 26, 2006, a Sheriff Officer of the State of Florida, William Wheetley and his drug detection dog, Aldo, were on patrol. Furthermore, Officer Wheetley conducted a traffic stop of the defendant Clayton Harris for expired tags on his truck. As Officer Wheetley approached the truck, he noticed that Harris was acting nervous/anxious, more than he should have, and he also noticed an open can of beer in the cup holder next to him. At that moment, Officer Wheetley knew that he was hiding something, he requested to search
On 01-01-17 at 0023 hours I was monitoring the radio and heard that Officer Harrell #3441 and Officer Thebeau #8402 were involved in a vehicle pursuit in the area of Fair Oaks Avenue and Corson Street. I responded to the above location to assist. They advised responding units that the suspect was involved in a traffic collision on the eastbound 210 Freeway Fair Oaks Avenue off-ramp.
“On the contrary, you’ll have to answer, gentlemen, for violently obstructing the course of justice”(417)
act. The defense argued that the search without a warrant and no probable cause was in
These considerations are: the age of the defendant, the level of education and intelligence, previous experience with the police, the nature of the questioning, the length of the detention before a statement was given, advice to the suspect of their constitutional rights, the length and reasonableness of a delay before appearing before a magistrate, altered mental state due to intoxication or poor health, the withholding of food, water, or health care; abuse, and the threat of abuse State v. Climer, 400 S.W.3d 537, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 354, 2013 WL 1694804 (Tenn. 2013), State v. Echols, 382 S.W.3d 266, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 738 (Tenn. 2012), State v. Blackstock, 19 S.W.3d 200, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 168 (Tenn. 2000). In addition to the aforementioned considerations, their level of functioning, reading skills, writing skills, demeanor, possible malingering, and responsiveness to interrogation are considered. Additionally, the language and manner used when presenting Miranda rights must also be taken into consideration State v. Blackstock, 19 S.W.3d 200, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 168 (Tenn.
I observed the officer claim that when he questions the defendant, he felt as if he was off. The victim gives a full detail report to the officer, describing what the person looked like and everything. One of the officers had taken his picture, and sent one to the transit police, to see if it was the same person they were looking for. In the meantime, the woman officer was interrogating him about where he has been and of prescription medication that was discovered in his bag. However, the defendant lied about why his taking the medicine. I observed that the police mentioned the defendant was very yielding and being extremely corporative. The officer mentioned that he took him to the hospital for psych assessment being that he was acting odd, so they kept him because of strange behavior. I observed the officer mention that from there, they got a report that the defendant was the same person they were looking at in the pictures. It was at the hospital that they arrested the defendant.
The case of Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]) is one of the most important cases in history. It brought about prominent rights that are still existent today in 2015 regarding interrogations and custody. The results of this case are still seen in the current criminal justice system. However, even though the rights that were given to the system by the court, there are still instances today in which these Miranda rights are violated. The concept of Miranda has evolved a lot from a court case to a code used by law enforcement during custodies and investigations.
From the moment an innocent individual enters the criminal justice system they are pressured by law enforcement whose main objective is to obtain a conviction. Some police interrogation tactics have been characterized as explicit violations of the suspect’s right to due process (Campbell and Denov 2004). However, this is just the beginning. Additional forms of suffering under police custody include assaults,
The Miranda warnings stem from a United States Court’s decision in the case, Miranda v. Arizona. There are two basic conditions that must be met for Miranda warnings to be required: the suspect must be in official police custody and the suspect must be under interrogation. The suspect goes through a booking process after an arrest. The suspect will have a bond hearing shortly after the completion of the booking process or after arraignment. The arraignment is the suspect’s first court appearance to officially hear the charges filed against him or her and to enter a plea. The preliminary hearing or grand jury proceeding determines if there is substantial evidence for the suspect to be tried for the crime charged. In this essay, I will identify and describe at least four rights afforded criminal defendants at the arrest stage and during pretrial. I will analyze the facts presented and other relevant factors in the scenario provided. I will cite legal authority to support my conclusions.
In this paper I am going to be discussing the Miranda rights. What they mean to you, what they entitle you to, and how they came to be used in law enforcement today. I am discussing this topic because, one it is useful to me as a police officer, two they can be very difficult to understand, and three if they are not read properly to you when you are placed under an arrest it could actually get you off. I will start off by discussing the history and some details of the Miranda case.
...w enforcement to solve cases, is highly dependent on my ability to investigate and interpret evidence. Thus, if I did not know about the laws of a “knock and talk,” I could potentially ruin a case by getting something thrown out due to my failure of “knock and talk”. In other words, this case will highly affect any investigator in trying to solve a case. The rules of a “knock and talk” are the same as before, this case just elaborated on them. In my field this case will constantly affect the way I handle and talk with subjects near their home. I will also be subjected to the many details necessary to show that a suspect acted voluntarily and consensually in a “knock and talk” as well as be very careful and alert of my own body movements and words. This entire case provides a lot of information to remember about “knock and talks” that will be helpful in the long run.
When situations occur that results in an arrest, some answers come from an offender as a result of someone being "interrogated” possibly is freely given. At the time when the officer saw Tom, the defendant was hovering over the victim and it was an instantaneous moment between the felon and the policeman. Nobody called the law at as a result of the incident. The officer was patrolling when he heard the woman scream, and he went to the back of house
As we the jury were deliberating what would be the best punishment for the crime the defendant, we examined his record which the jury did not find anything to judge him by in a negative light. We have also heard testimony he has been involved in a conflict with a former inmate. We further learned it has not always been easy to make the defendant to comply with orders from the officials in the
...en of proof falling on his shoulders, Mr. Myers presented a solid case with seemingly creditable witnesses against Vole (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 33). Much to Mr. Myers chagrin, Sir Wildrid argued for the defense of his client and provided insight or evidence to discredit all three witnesses for the prosecution (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 33). While “Witness for the Prosecution” was fictional, the movie yielded “whether you were lying then or are you lying now”, which is an expression frequently used in courtrooms today (Hornblow & Wilder, 1957).