Probable Cause 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. What warrants, if any, does …show more content…
Law enforcement must have reasonable suspicion and probable cause to pursue the defendant. A police officer, whom may have probable cause to believe that the defendant is in the process of a crime or a crime committed, is able to enter the garage to arrest the individual without an arrest warrant or search warrant. Under the fourth amendment the police officer is not required to delay his investigation to do so would endanger their lives and others. (Katz v. United States). Nonetheless, if the defendant is caught in a hot pursuit, and after the defendant’s vehicle has been impounded by the police, the defendant and officers have the right to search it for the purpose of making an inventory of the contents in the vehicle, used as evidence. The reason for the inventory is to protect the police officer against occurring claims that the impounded vehicle was taken while in police custody. If the officer is in no danger, then he would need an arrest warrant to detain the individual and search warrant to enter his garage. If while inside the garage, the officer becomes in “hot pursuit” of the defendant and may give chance. The police officer would not need a search warrant to enter the hoe in pursuit of the
The police responded to a tip that a home was being used to sell drugs. When they arrived at the home, Gant answered the door and stated that he expected the owner to return home later. The officers left and did a record check of Gant and found that his driver’s license had been suspended and there was a warrant for his arrest. The officers returned to the house later that evening and Gant wasn’t there. Gant returned shortly and was recognized by officers. He parked at the end of the driveway and exited his vehicle and was placed under arrest 10 feet from his car and was placed in the back of the squad car immediately. After Gant was secured, two officers searched his car and found a gun and a bag of cocaine.
Exigent circumstances are when immediate action needs to be taken. When a cop pulls someone, and the officer needs to search the vehicle immediately and doesn’t have time for a search warrant to get there or be issued. If the vehicles driver or other passengers are going to destroy evidence, then the cop needs to get everyone out of the vehicle search them and the vehicle. It is the cop’s discernment and the cop has to have probable cause. Now the only thing that is needed is probable cause for a vehicle stop, this justifies a search and seizure on a vehicle.
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
(Purdon’s, 166). Also in 1989 in addition to what sections officers could arrest for they also had to “observe recent physical injury or other corroborative evidence and the victim is a spouse of the suspect or a person with whom the suspect resides or has formally resided with.” (Zimmerman, 30).
One of the major court decisions for the “Search Incident to Arrest” was Gant vs. Arizona. Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended driving license. When the police officers arrested him and had him hand cuffed in the back seat of the police car, they then did a search on his vehicle. The police then didn’t have a reason to think there were illegal things in his car just from driving with a suspended license. The search warrant to arrest states that a police officer may conduct a warrantless search if there are any suspensions found within the area. In Gant versus Arizona this was not the case. The police officer had no reason to search Rodney’s car just because he had a suspended drivers license. As the police officer was searching the car he found cocaine in a jacket pocket in the back seat. A previous case ruling such as New York versus Belton, they had made the bright-line rule. The bright-line says that a police can search the compartment on the passenger side of a vehicle or any containers that are within the reach or “grabbing area” of the arrestee. Later over the years there was another court casing, Thornton versus United States. During the courts ruling they had changed the Belton rule again. It now said that the police cannot pursue a warrantless search if the arrestee is secured and locked up in a police car and has no access to the inside of the vehicle. After hearing the revised rule, the court did not give up. In the final courts ruling, a police can still perform a warrantless search only if there is any reason to believe there is other crime related evidence in the vehicle. Since the time of Gants arrest the police had no suspicions to conduct a warrantless search because of a suspended driving license, Gant
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 Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"(Cornell). The clauses within the Fifth Amendment outline constitutional limits on police procedure. Within them there is protection against self-incrimination, it protects defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may plead the fifth and not answer to any questioning if they believe it can hurt them (Cornell). The Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, enumerates certain basic personal liberties. Laws passed by elected officials that infringe on these liberties are invalidated by the judiciary as unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment was ratified in 1791; the Framers of the Fifth Amendment intended that its revisions would apply only to the actions of the federal government. After the Fourteenth was ratified, most of the Fifth Amendment's protections were made applicable to the states. Under the Incorporation Doctrine, most of the liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights were made applicable to state governments through the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (Burton, 2007).
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued
A search and seizure is the phrase that describes law enforcement's gathering of evidence of a crime. Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, any search of a person or his premises this also includes vehicles. Any seizure of tangible evidence, must be reasonable. Normally, law enforcement must obtain a search warrant from a judge, specifying where and whom they may search, and what they may seize, though in emergency circumstances, they may dispense with the warrant requirement.
In order to understand how to compile evidence for criminal cases, we must understand the most effective types of evidence. This topic is interesting because there are ample amounts of cases where defendants have gotten off because of the lack of forensic evidence. If we believe forensic evidence is so important and it affects our decisions, then maybe we need to be educated on the reality of forensic evidence. If we can be educated, then we may have a more successful justice system. If we have a more successful justice system than the public could gain more confidence that justice will be served. In order to do this, we must find what type of evidence is most effective, this can be done by examining different types of evidence.
What is the purpose of police officers? Are they here to provide safety for the people or are they here to just mess up their lives? All around the country the statement “protect and serve” can be seen on any police vehicle and any police building. But more often times than not the question arises, who are they truly protecting? Themselves or the helpless citizens of The United States of America. Over the past century crimes rates have sky rocketed; although these crimes are not being committed by your everyday criminals they 're being committed by the police officers that are suppose to be protecting the people. The reasoning behind these crimes remains unknown, but, there are always two sides to every story.
principle differentiating the two is the intent of the perpetrator of either an assault or battery. A
The ability of police to exercise discretion was originally designed to allow officers to maintain the peace by allowing certain types of crime to remain unpunished in certain circumstances. This essay will aim to explore the issue of police discretion that suggests that the application of discretion works against the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In drawing this conclusion, this essay will examine the relationship between policing ideals and the use of discretionary powers and the relationship between policing attitudes and the use of discretionary powers. A discussion regarding the use of police discretion towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can scarcely be mentioned without making reference to arguably the greatest failing by a police officer since indigenous Australians were formally recognised as citizens. Further to this, the case of Mulrunji Doomadgee (Cameron) will be examined from the point of view of officer discretionary powers. The penultimate point to be made will involve the Anglo Australian response to this case as well as the ongoing relationship between indigenous Australians and the institutions that govern them. As mentioned, the first point will involve policing ideals and their relationship to discretionary powers.
Crime is an in inevitable occurrence in today 's culture. Despite the best efforts of our country 's criminal justice system, crime continues to be on the rise. In an effort to reverse this rising tide, efforts are being made to understand the underlying cause of crime and factors that can lead an individual into the life of crime. From the sociological perspective, there are three theories that are used to explain the cause of crime. They are the social structure theory, the bad neighborhood theory, and the social process theory.
Psychology is known as the study of the mind including human behaviors and processes that the mind goes through. However, psychology is a board major in which a student must specialist in order to further pursue a career that is designed for them. Forensic psychology is a narrow focus of the broader field of psychology, which requires a degree and a strong community to obtain a desired salary. With this field, a forensic psychologist works in a field of both law and criminal investigation. Therefore, this specialty allows for a mix of both psychology and the law to someone interested in both career paths.