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
Fraud is one of Canada's most severe acts of financial criminality as the economic impact of this crime could potentially handicap an entire society. According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre Annual Statistic Report (CAFC), a report established to monitor fraud with the aid of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and Competition Bureau of Canada, it reported an annual loss of 74 million dollars affecting over 14,472 victims (Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, 2014). Given this alarming statistic, it is worrisome that we as a society still ignore or turn a blind eye towards those who commit fraud as seen in the low conviction (Canada Revenue Agency, 2014), and focus our efforts on petty thefts as seen with the high rate of convictions
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
In 1975, the United State Supreme Court held that state law could provide students a property interest in their education, but forty years later and courts remain uncertain of when such an interest exists. In Goss v. Lopez, the United States Supreme Court extended due process protections to a group of high school students in Ohio. The Court determined that Ohio state law provided the high school students a property interest in their continued enrollment at the school, and that such an interest was protected under the due process clause. The Goss decision came during a time when a due process revolution was happening in the United States. During this revolution, the Supreme Court recognized many new property interests in government benefits as the basis
FACTS OF THE CASE: Police, suspecting that the defendant, Kyllo, was growing substantial amounts of marijuana inside his unit of a triplex residence, scanned the units from outside by means of a device that measured heat signatures. This provided information on the amount of heat originating within the residence. The thermal scan revealed that a portion of Kyllo’s roof and wall had higher temperatures relative to other areas of the building, being
Officer Ryan’s perception of the situation at hand was one that led to an escalation. He pulled over Mr. and Mrs. Thayer though his partner warned him they did nothing wrong. His response was simply, “they were doing something.” Officer Ryan’s initial perception of Mrs. Thayer was incorrect, as he perceived her to be a white woman that was engaging in fellatio with a black man. Once Officer Ryan engaged in a conversation with Mr. Thayer and noticed how lightly he and his wife were taking the current situation, he became aggravated and asked Mr. Thayer to step out of the vehicle to perform a sobriety test. Once this incident occurred, Mrs. Thayer’s perception of Officer Ryan changed. She viewed him as a crooked and nefarious officer. As a result, the communication between Officer Ryan and Mrs. Thayer escalated as she became argumentative. Mrs. Thayer’s perception of Officer Ryan changed once again as he manipulated his “pat down.” Officer Ryan manipulated his “right” as an officer and as a result the communication between Mrs. Thayer and himself escalated. Furthermore, the communication between Officer Ryan and Mrs. Thayer escalated further when he stated that Mrs. Thayer had a “dirty mouth” and that Mr. Thayer would
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The decision requires law enforcement officers to follow a code of conduct when arresting suspects. After an arrest is made, before they may begin questioning they must first advise the suspect of their rights, and make sure that the suspect understands them. These rights are known as the Miranda Warnings and include:
In the case of Missouri v. McNeely the offender Tyler McNeely was arrested upon the suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. These suspicions were further supported by McNeely’s failure to pass four field-sobriety tests. He refused the preliminary Breathalyzer test both in the field and after arriving at the police station. He was then taken to a hospital where he was subjected to a nonconsensual evidentiary blood draw. The test was performed 23 minutes after the initial traffic stop and tested for a blood-alcohol concentration over the legal
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).
In the case Florida Vs. Royer two narcotic officers approached Royer for a quick discussion, letting Royer know that they are officers. Royer was not told if he was going to be arrested or aware that he would be searched. The two detectives walked with Royer into a larger storage room and began searching he’s property without having sufficient facts to lead the officers into a search and seize operation. The two detectives did not fit in any of the reasoning for probable cause, for starters First hand knowledge requires facts such as finger printing, DNA, evidence in which indicates the person is committing a criminal act. The detectives were not told by a reliable source in which Royer was in fact carrying marijuana. Making an arrest without
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
DLK had no way of disposing all of the evidence without being suspicious about his actions because his house was not on hot pursuit, DLK was in his own house and not endangering public safety, he did not allow the agents to scan his home for the signs of heat used to grow marijuana, and he was not arrested in public therefore the agents had no probable cause to search his house without a warrant. In Document A it gives an example of a court case similar to DLK’s case, Carroll v. United States. In this dispute during the Prohibition Era, federal agents believed Carroll was selling alcohol. The agents spotted Carroll driving on a highway and chased him, when they pulled him over they searched his car, found the alcohol and arrested him. Carroll argued that this violated his Fourth Amendment rights but the Supreme Court ruled the search was lawful because this was considered hot pursuit and Carroll could easily drive away with all of the
A vast majority of states in the US have laws that allow police officers to stop and frisk an individual. This procedure is allowed on the basis of reasonable suspicion, where as an arrest requires probable cause. If reasonable suspicion is not displayed then it is not a valid justifiable stop and frisk. Reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content from that required to establish probable cause, but also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable that that required to show probable cause. It must be grounded on specific facts and logical conclusions based on the officer’s experience.