Constable Tretiak caught Cashman in possession of a controlled substance as shown in Schedule I. Section 495(2) imposes a duty not to arrest unless there are reasonable grounds the accused will not appear in court or for public interest (establishing identity, secure evidence, and to prevent the continuation of the offence). Cashman did not have identification on him; therefore, Constable Tretiak did not know the identity of Cashman and was able to arrest Cashman prior to the checks. Constable Tretiak’s arrest of Cashman did not change after his computer checks. Section 524(2) of the Criminal Code states that a Peace Officer can arrest the accused without a warrant if the accused violated an undertaking given to him.
He had no right to move Mr. Hicks’ items, the officers where there to make an arrest not to search the area or to touch Mr. Hicks’ p... ... middle of paper ... ...ke was not getting a search warrant, and going beyond the original search. Overall this was a great case to read. Arizona v. Hicks held that the 4th Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view. Again the major facts of this case were that the police had initial entry into Hick’s apartment. Even though it took place without a warrant.
It is important that upon request, the criminal must be informed of their constitutional rights and must be allowed to exercise them. The Chief Justice Warren argues that when an individual is taken into custody, the Miranda warnings must be given. If not, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self – incrimination is jeopardized when the individual is deprived of his/her freedom. He also argues that the criminal can waive his/her rights and agree to make a statement once the Miranda rule has been given; though, a valid waiver is not presumed by mere silence. Chief Justice Warren further explained that the Miranda rule do not hamper the police in investigating crime because the general on the scene interrogation is not affected in any way.
The 4th amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If it is violated by the government, all evidence found by the unlawful search and seizure must be excluded as per the exclusionary rule which serves as a remedy for 4th amendment violations. Before a remedy can be given for violation of the 4th amendment, a court must determine whether the 4th amendment is applicable to a certain case. The 4th Amendment only applies when certain criteria are met. The first criterion is that the government must be involved in a search or seizure via government action.
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?
A-58). It also requires “a warrant that specifically describes the place to be searched, the person involved, and suspicious things to be seized” (Goldfield et al. A- 58). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people by preventing public officials from searching homes or personal belonging without reason. It also determines whether “someone 's privacy is diminished by a governmental search or seizure” (Heritage).
The ‘exclusionary rule’ was created to put under limitations the Federal officials and United States courts as they exercise their powers and authority. Additionally, it is in place to see that people maintain their own privacy and rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendments. It also allows people to secure their premises, person, papers and other effects from unwarranted and unreasonable searches and seizures under the pretense of law. The United States constitution does not allow or tolerate police searches and seizures without warrants and therefore illegal searches and seizure unless there is a good reason for it. This article will argue that the provision for ‘exclusionary rule’ has deterred the police from harassing innocent citizens particularly the minorities groups and defendants too with illegal and unwarranted searches and seizures.
It means that we have the right for privacy and the authorities have no right to search an individual unless there is probable cause. Probable cause falls under the fourth amendment which is that the police officer must have a reasonable amount of suspicion to make an arrest, get a search warrant, and seize property. In addition, if the police officers believe that there is probable cause, he or she may arrest and search an individual without a warrant. Police officers may also have a reasonable suspicion for an individual who has or will commit a crime. It is defined as more as a guess but it is less than probable cause.
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. A search and seizure by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is present. Such a search or seizure is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, and evidence obtained from the unlawful search may not be introduced in court. Detention is a term used by certain governments and their military to refer to individuals held in custody.
This Court should adopt a per se bar standard that the government may not authorize an investigatory stop for a completed misdemeanor. Mr. Dansby’s constitutional rights were violated when the officer conducted an invest... ... middle of paper ... ...t necessary, as it does not serve the purpose of the probable cause warrant standard established under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 1655. By prohibiting investigatory searches and seizures for a completed, nonviolent misdemeanor, this Court will be able to deter the police misconduct.