FACTS: On May 13, 2015 The Officer was assisting another officer with a call in front of Pelican Pub in downtown St. Petersburg. (R. 46, 1). While assisting with the call, The Officer observed The Defendant at the outside patio of the Ringside Caf?. (R. 46, 4-9). At that point, The Officer observed The Defendant exited the patio of the caf? and walk onto the sidewalk. (R. 47, 4-6). When The Defendant walked onto the sidewalk, he was holding a glass that The Officer identified as a cocktail glass with a dark liquid that was visible inside the glass. (R. 47, 9-23). As The Defendant walked away from the bar, he passed within a foot of The Officer, (R. 53, 14-16), and The Officer advised The Defendantg to finish his drink in the bar. (R. 48, 11-12). …show more content…
Golphin v. State, 945 So. 2d 1174, 1180 (Fla. 5th DCA 1003). First, during a consensual encounter there is minimal police contact and the citizen may either voluntarily comply with a police officer?s requests or choose to ignore them. Golphin, 945 So 2d at 1180. Second, an investigatory stop allows a police officer to detain a citizen temporarily if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime. Golphin, 945 So 2d at 1180. Further, the officer?s suspicions that criminal activity occurred or is going to occur, must be well-founded and articulable. Golphin, 945 So 2d at 1180. Third, an arrest, which must be supportable by probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed. Golphin, 945 So 2d at 1180. …show more content…
As The Defendant walked out of the bar, he was carrying a glass that, in The Officer experience, would be a type of glass that a bar would serve a mixed drink in. Additionally, the glass that The Defendant was carrying was translucent, allowing The Officer to identify a dark, carbonated liquid that, in The Officer? experience, would have been typical of a popular mixed-drink. Further, when The Defendant walked by The Officer, the Officer could smell alcohol. Based on The Officer experience, and the totality of the circumstances, he developed a well-founded suspicion that The Defendant was carrying an open container on a public
Application/Analysis: While using a previous case DePasquale v. State 757.1988, that court held in this case that the defendant was not entrapped when he robbed that undercover female decoy. The court held that the officers committed no misconduct, they also put five factors that show that Miller intended to steal from the decoy. The fact that Mill asked Officer Leavitt for money first and after Leavitt told him no; Miller took it upon himself to take the money away. This act was enough to show Miller intentionally committed larceny, the court held that Miller was not
As a result of the suspect, P.C Spicer asked the defendant for a piece of identification, and Mr.Nanokeesic responded the identification was in his backpack and P.C Spicer told him to get it. Nevertheless, the other office P.C Bannon formed intention to search his backpack during the unlawful detention. The police said “perhaps I need to look for you.” At this point he reached out for the strap of Mr.Nanokeesic’s backpack. In R.v.Mohamd, the court held that the Officer must subjectively believe that person is committing or has committed an indictable offence and their belief is based on objectively reasonable grounds. There was no evidence of Mr.Nanokeesic was committing an indictable offence. Also, the detention of Mr.Nanokeesic was unreasonable and unlawful. In short, the police did not have any lawful basis to conduct a
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
Expert opinion was given on the ability of the appellant to keep a careful lookout in the circumstances of the incident. Given that this information was not contradicted, and there was no compelling reason to find otherwise, that evidence should have informed the finding...
Reasonable Suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable su...
Mr. P has a history of DUI’s in his past, which thereby warranted his current arrest. He was pleasant and cooperative during his arrest and was taken into custody without incident. He then was released the next day and was given a court date. Mr. P obtained legal defense and faced the judge with fear of being incarcerated, but was confident that he had a defensible case. The judge thought otherwise, and imposed a harsh sentence of 90-day substance abuse treatment at a correctional facility. Yet, Mr. P was defensive when confronted about his alcohol use and denies that that his drinking and driving is a concern. Furthermore, he rejects this behavior as being harmful to his work environment, other than if he were incarcerated he may lose employment.
There many levels of intrusion when it comes to stop and frisk. The first level of intrusion is a method to request evidence, allowable only when there is an objective believable reason for an intervention. Police do not necessarily need to suspect criminal activity. The second level of intrusion is known as the common-law right to inquire and is permissible only when the officer has a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. This is a larger intrusion since the officer can interfere with a citizen in an effort to gain explanatory information. However, at this level the intrusion must fall short of a forcible search. The third level of intrusion is sanctioned when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a particular person has committed, or is about to commit an offense or misdemeanor. At this level, an officer is also authorized to make a forcible stop and detain the citizen for questioning. Furthermore, an ...
First, studies have to show how the officers apply the procedure of stop-and-frisk second, it should describe how the Fourth Amendment ties with how the police officer performs it. As further research has passed, the authors have seen some articles of steps on how stop-and-frisk being done. “Officers should conduct stops only when they are justified.” By this standard, officers should be required to file a report explaining the reason and context surrounding the stop, along with the ultimate outcome (arrest, weapons or drug confiscation, etc.). Police leaders, commanders, and managers should communicate a clear, uniform message about the purpose of the practice and lay out the expectations for police conduct. Officers should be trained to conduct stops legally and respectfully. In essence, they need to “sell the stop” to citizens by explaining the purpose behind it, how it links to the agency’s crime control efforts, and why it benefits the
The New York City Police Department enacted a stop and frisk program was enacted to ensure the safety of pedestrians and the safety of the entire city. Stop and frisk is a practice which police officers stop and question hundreds of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband. Those who are found to be carrying any weapons or illegal substances are placed under arrest, taken to the station for booking, and if needed given a summons to appear in front of a judge at a later date. The NYPD’s rules for stop and frisk are based on the United States Supreme Courts decision in Terry v. Ohio. The ruling in Terry v. Ohio held that search and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment, is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. If the police officer has a “reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous”, an arrest is justified (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, at 30).
out a warrant and intoxicating liquor was found and was taken. The liquor and other
Law enforcement officers need a reason to stop you. Remember, it cannot be just a hunch the police officer had. Their action has to be backed up with facts that led him to believe you, or someone else had committed a crime. Like the Supreme Court cases we went over, all dealt with reasonable suspicion in some way. Reasonable suspicion is the standard police officers need to stop and frisk someone. They will need probable cause, a higher standard, to search and arrest a person. Remember, officers need reasonable suspicion to stop, question, and
The Fourth Amendment provides people with the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Courts have long recognized that the Forth Amendment protected individuals from unjustified police intrusions into one’s person, home, car, or other possessions, but few practical protection mechanisms existed. To preserve these constitutional guarantees, the Supreme Court established standards by which police officers must abide. One such protection has been the probable cause — a belief that the person committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. In order to uphold an arrest or seizure, courts have required a probable cause combined with either a warrant or circumstances
One of the most important amendments in the United States Constitution and which is also part of the Bill of Rights is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects people from being searched or arrested by police officers or any law enforcement without a reason. An officer may confront you and ask to search your house but if they don’t have a search warrant, they cannot legally pursue it without good reason and permission from a judge. Now what happens when a person is being arrested? Does the police or any law enforcement need a search warrant? The answer to that question would have to be no. This is where “Search incident to arrest” comes into play. Search incident to arrest (SITA), which could also be called the Chimel rule, is a
Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 589 F.2d 791, 794 (5th Cir. 1979) The appellant court held that it was not. According to rule 404 under the Federal Rules of Evidence, “evidence of a person 's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait”. Fed. R. Evid. 404 Under this rule the evidence of Reyes prior convictions admitted by the trial court, “purpose of showing that he was intoxicated on the night that he was run over by defendant-appellee 's train” proves to be inadmissible under Rule 404(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 589 F.2d 791, 792 (5th Cir. 1979) The courts due mention the exceptions on the admission of character evidence. However the court did not use the evidence of Reyes past drunkenness to prove some other criminal purpose. Since the trial court failed to do the latter, and instead entered evidence on the basis of character to prove that the plaintiff acted in accordance with his character trait during the night in question, it went against the modern rules set out in FRE 404 and is therefore
This paper assumes that a police officer may or may not have “probable cause to arrest a defendant for armed assault” (AIU, 2016, para 1). I will address if the police officer had probable cause to believe that there is a person hiding in the third person’s garage, attached to the house (AIU, 2016, para 1). Accordingly, the police officer may need or not a warrant “to enter the garage to arrest the defendant” (AIU, 2016, para 2). An examination to “if the officer is in hot pursuit with the defendant” (AIU, 2016, para 2), and if the defendant is known to be injured and armed” (AIU, 2015, para 2). In addition, explain if the police officer probable cause to arrest and search the A and B residences.