Not many of us know this but, did you know that there are actually three types of confrontations with a police officer? Now you are probably thinking what those three types could be. Well, the three types are consensual encounters, a detention and probable cause to an arrest. In this paper I will be informing you about what happens in each confrontation and also what you may and may not do. Consensual encounters are the most common type of confrontations between people and police officers.
A consensual encounter is simply when an officer goes up to an individual and try’s to begin a conversation, it is just like someone starting a conversation with a stranger at a store, a market or any place. An officer doesn’t need to have probable cause
…show more content…
“The court indicated that a Terry-type stop will ordinarily be for a fairly short duration and that the detention will be no longer than necessary to effectuate the purpose of the detention” (Roberson, Cliff. (2015). Most of this stops are usually traffic stops and once the officer has turned on his red lights, the detention has started but it’s not a detention if the officer approaches a parked car and starts asking for the drivers identification. When the officer has stopped the individual and feels like that individual may be dangerous to the officer or anyone else, then the officer is allowed to do a pat down to see if the person has any weapons or anything that may be harmful. What the officer is not allowed to do when doing the pat down is that the officer can’t go inside the person’s pockets or check any bags without their permission. Unless the officer feels a bump and is 100% positive that it’s a weapon, they may go ahead and grab it. (Martin, M. (13, September). At last, it all comes down to making an arrest only if the officer has developed enough probable …show more content…
“Probable cause for arrest exists when facts and circumstances within the police officer's knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” (Probable Cause - FindLaw. (2013). If the officer arrests someone for committing a rape or a murder and that officer didn’t develop any type of probable cause then that person wouldn’t even be charged with a felony or get thrown into prison. Officers can develop probable cause through a few ways but a couple are by our senses such as sight, touch, smell and hearing and another way could be information obtained from a witness or the victim. Probable cause doesn’t just allow officers to make an arrest but also, it allows for warrants and searches to be made (Roberson, Cliff. (2015). In many cases though, most of the arrests happen without a warrant as long as there was probable cause. So if the officer didn’t develop probable cause and made an arrest, the officer will lose the case and the person arrested would be free
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.
...rrests for all sorts of relatively minor offenses unaccompanied by violence, including, among others, night walking, unlawful game-playing, profane cursing, and negligent carriage-driving. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the court has had little to say about warrantless misdemeanor arrest authority; however in what little they have said they have focused on the circumstance that an offense was committed in the officer’s presence, to the omission of any reference to a breach of the peace limitation.
Stop and frisk is a brief, non-intrusive, police stop of a suspicious individual. The Fourth Amendment entails that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is in progress before stopping a suspect. If the officer realistically is certain that the person is carrying a weapon and is dangerous, the officers can conduct a search, a rapid pat down of the suspect’s exterior clothing. A law enforcement officer may stop and briefly detain a person for investigatory purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts of impending criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is less demanding than probable cause, less quantity of evidence or information is needed. Reasonable suspicion can come from information less reliable than needed for probable cause.
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).
Consensual encounter is nothing more than a conversation between a cop and a individual in which the person is not being detained or pulled over. If the officer notices something suspicious he can search you and if he finds something illegal he can arrest you. For example, if john is at a gas station and a cop says hello, he can either say hello back or just walk away. Well John says hello which sparks a conversation between the two. The cop notices he can't stay balanced and his words are slurred so he conducts a search and finds weed on him and open beer cans on the floor of his car. The officer then arrested him and took him to jail. During court, the judge denies the claim that John was searched in a illegal stop-and-frisk. The judge said
Law enforcement officers are in constant dangerous situations while out doing their responsibilities. When in these threatening situations, police officers typically have little to no time to determine the right precaution. These precautions may lead to the death of a suspect or even the officer themselves. The media has recently shed light on police brutality with use of force. Use of force could be defined as the amount of effort an officer must use in order to make an unwilling subject compel. Police officers are usually trained to enable the proper responsible to a dangerous situation they may be put in. In this paper I will go through the guidelines that a police officer must obey when considering a certain degree of use of force. Within each guideline there will be the pro and cons with that situation and also a recent case that happened. This paper will also talk about how this topic can be addressed more properly. These guidelines that officer are taught during their training are called Use of Force Continuum.
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
next interaction. Some of the most blatant of these instances was when the police officer had an
If the police reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous, they may conduct a frisk, a quick pat-down of the person’s outer clothing. Moreover, Terry stop is conducted within the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution which, “is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…”
Police brutality is the considered use of unnecessary force, usually physical, carried out during law enforcement activities with the population. This type of behavior also includes verbal attacks and psychological intimidation by a police officer. Police brutality has an adverse effect on society, and it has lead to critical injury and even death. There are three different was to explain police brutality: the history, the reason, and the solution for it. The history, including the beginning or the first case of police brutality, the different police brutality through the times, and present day police brutality. The reason, including laws for police brutality, the cause of personal emotions or reaction of officers. The solution, involves protests,
The police forces in every community are deemed law enforcement officers and have to take necessary precautions in executing their job. Individuals that police officers encounter may at any time threaten the security of the officer or others. Police officers have to follow procedures that are necessary to maintain control of situations that can cause harm to others or property. The three topics that will be discussed in police use of force are; the explanation and background of use of force, limitations of use of force, and disputed court cases dealing with police use of force.
Over the years the way law enforcement officers have been able to investigate cases has been drastically changed over the years. Investigations used to be a very prying, and vindictive matter. Now it is very delicate. Since the Miranda case, law enforcement has been very open and aware of defendants’ rights.
Tom was not “interrogated” even though he was restrained. The officer’s best interest was that of the victim; therefore, he called an ambulance to seek medical attention for the victim and proceeded to get the bat Tom threw over the fence. Who is to say that someone else could have been involved with the assault of the woman? That would mean the public and the officer himself may have been in danger (Hall, 2015). As stated by Hall (2015), “The relatively rigid Miranda rules are relaxed when there is a public safety exigency that was the impetus of a brief and limited interrogation designed to meet the exigency” (p. 479). Needless to say, the officer proceeded to ask an involuntary question to Tom regarding his “motive”, at which time he should have read his rights to him. Although Tom claims that the bat as well as his statement should be an exclusionary fruit, he will be charged for the assault of the victim and possession of the bat (Hall, 2015) As stated by Hall (2015), “First, volunteered statements are not the product of interrogation. The Miranda decision explicitly states that officers are under no duty to interrupt a volunteered confession in order to read a confessor his or
Officers are able to use discretion in many situations that their morals would guide them in. They have the right to pull a person over with probable cause or a violation and they can choose whether to give them a ticket, a warning, or nothing, depending on the situation.