Often when people are questioned by officers of law, they are afraid to foot away from the law enforcers. What most individuals do not know is that until they have been formally detained or arrested, these law officers have no power or authority to prevent them from walking away. However, when an officer obstructs an individual from footing away, that individual has already been arrested as the Constitution allows them to make arrests provided that they have probable cause. The primary aim of this assignment is to address whether the law officer had probable cause to rely that the suspect is hiding in the third person’s garage as well as assume that the police officer who may or may not have probable cause to arrest a defendant can proceed …show more content…
Often, the officers of law pursue suspects when they escape or run, but have a reasonable suspicion and probable cause to pursue them. As a result, the constitution gives power and authority to officers of the law to arrest suspects and defendants whom they believe they are in the process of committing a crime or has already committed the crime without a warrant of arrest. In such a case, the officer may search the defendant’s belongings and residence to obtain the necessary evidence as well as protecting himself and the general public. Such arrest cases are common in the case of hot pursuit (O'Malley, 2015). In most cases, when a suspect or a defendant is caught in hot pursuit, the officer has the right to search the impounded vehicle to make an inventory of its contents as well as gathering evidence. Thus, if the officers of the law are not in hot pursuit of the defendant and have no warrant to search the garage, they have no right to arrest or search the third person’s …show more content…
Often, for an officer to secure an arrest warrant, he or she has to sign a testimony indicating that the facts as to why probable cause exists to detain a person. On the other side, probable cause for detention is legal when the events and scenarios within the police’s evidence would make a sensible individual to believe that the accused has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime (Rivera, 2016). The circumstances below show when both probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search are
The issue that this case raises, is whether or not the officers had the right to search the car of a person who they just arrested, while the person is handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car?
According to the Justice Kagan, in the case of Florida vs. Harris, “we considered how a court should determine if the “alert” of drug-detention during a traffic stop provides probable cause to search a vehicle” (Kagan).
The Court sets up their argument by listing two competing concerns which must be accommodated in defining a voluntary consent. They are the legitimate need for such searches and the requirement of assuring the absence of coercion. The Court digresses from the case at hand with the first concern. The facts of Schneckloth v. Bustamonte indicate that the suspects were stopped for the violation of having lights burned out on their automobile. Given these circumstances there is no legitimate need to search for further evidence. All the proof needed to give a ticket for...
The Supreme Court has held that vehicle searches are permitted if the arrestee is unsecured and is reaching distance from the passenger compartment or if the vehicle would have evidenced related to the arrest. Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 999 (2014). Searches based on information received from a seized cell phone must be permitted by warrant. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009).
Racial profiling is the tactic of stopping someone because of the color of his or her skin and a fleeting suspicion that the person is engaging in criminal behavior (Meeks, p. 4-5). This practice can be conducted with routine traffic stops, or can be completely random based on the car that is driven, the number of people in the car and the race of the driver and passengers. The practice of racial profiling may seem more prevalent in today’s society, but in reality has been a part of American culture since the days of slavery. According to Tracey Maclin, a professor at the Boston University School of Law, racial profiling is an old concept. The historical roots “can be traced to a time in early American society when court officials permitted constables and ordinary citizens the right to ‘take up’ all black persons seen ‘gadding abroad’ without their master’s permission” (Meeks, p. 5). Although slavery is long since gone, the frequency in which racial profiling takes place remains the same. However, because of our advanced electronic media, this issue has been brought to the American public’s attention.
This action applies to conduct by government officials such as police, firemen, or an individual hired as a private actor by the government. After the first criterion has been met, the court must determine whether a search or seizure has occurred. A search is defined as the physical or technological invasion of an area deemed by the majority of the court to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These places could be homes or a closed telephone booth, depending on the circumstances of the incident. A seizure occurs when the government takes one's personal belongings or the individual themselves.
For the past few years there has been an ongoing debate surrounding the issue of racial profiling. The act of racial profiling may rest on the assumption that African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to commit crimes than any individual of other races or ethnicities. Both David Cole in the article "The Color of Justice" and William in the article "Road Rage" take stance on this issue and argue against it in order to make humanity aware of how erroneous it is to judge people without evidence. Although Cole and William were very successful in matters of showing situations and qualitative information about racial profiling in their articles, both of them fail at some points.
Well written procedures, rules, and regulation provide the cornerstone for effectively implementing policies within the criminal justice system. During the investigational process, evidence collected is subjected to policies such as Search and Seizure, yet, scrutinized by the Exclusionary Rule prior to the judicial proceeding. Concurrent with criminal justice theories, evidence collected must be constitutionally protected, obtained in a legal and authorized nature, and without violations of Due Process. Although crime and criminal activities occur, applicability of policies is to ensure accountability for deviant behaviors and to correct potentially escalation within social communities It is essential the government address such deviant behavior, however, equally important is the protection of the accused which also must become a priority when investigating criminal cases.
Racial profiling is the most idiotic and arrogant thing you can ever do as a person. Usually the people who are affected by racial profiling are minorities, however, any person can be a victim of racial profiling. Some may think that racial profiling is non-existent, however, I would like to bring the situation into focus and show that it is still in existence and has been observed in the past and now in the current year. Although, more than fifty percent of the time racial profiling is conducted it is against a man or woman of color; an African-American in other words. There are instances where a white person can be a victim as well. Trying not to say that there isn't any person out there that is exempted from racial profiling, because there isn't a single person who is just exempted from this cruel method of decision making. In my essay I will talk about racial profiling and what it is, however, you can't forget about where it happens and of course why. Several resolutions will be discussed in this essay to alleviate this problem.
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
Defendant asserts that reasonable suspicion is a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the subject of criminal activity. State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215, 218 (Tenn. 2000). Defendant contends that the State must produce more than just a “hunch” of suspecting criminal activity, and that, at the time the Officers conducted the traffic stop of the defendant, they did not meet the standard of reasonable suspicion in order to detain him. Defendant hinges the argument on the assertion that police had no way of possessing reasonable suspicion that the handgun or the drugs were in the car at the time of the
"I don't want to talk about whether or not racial profiling is legal. Racial profiling is not an effective law enforcement tool." -- Eric Holder, 82nd Attorney General of the United States
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,
In this paper I am going to be discussing the Miranda rights. What they mean to you, what they entitle you to, and how they came to be used in law enforcement today. I am discussing this topic because, one it is useful to me as a police officer, two they can be very difficult to understand, and three if they are not read properly to you when you are placed under an arrest it could actually get you off. I will start off by discussing the history and some details of the Miranda case.
As a young black woman, I can’t help but to be drawn in by the black man’s story. African-Americans who started off as property, then promoted to second class citizens and finally equals but maybe not the same, have a long standing history somewhat separate from the rest of America. Forced to be a part of a country where they were only desired when they were merely dollar signs driving the south’s economy, and soon just considered a nuisance rather not dealt with, blacks have faced many tribulations. Oppressed for many years, blacks have come a long way. That being said the race dilemma in America still lingers. Today every citizen is entitled to the same rights and pursuit of happiness but it would be naïve to say that difference don’t exists