As said by the Fourth Amendment, " the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against an unreasonable search 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 searched, and the persons or things be seized." The fourth amendment was set in place so that the police or any other law officials are not authorized to just come into people’s homes without permission and rummage through their personal belongings without the authority of a search warrant. Whether an individual is guilty or not or even appears to be guilty, without a warrant, police cannot go into their home and start looking and gathering evidence, unless there is probable cause, such as someone’s life may be in danger. If law officials were to go into their home and gather evidence without a warrant and attempt to use it in a court of law, could very much be ruled as inadmissible and the offender could end up being set free for their crime.
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.
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). This amendment protects citizens from having evidence which was seized illegally “used against the one whose privacy was invaded” (Heritage). This gives police incentive to abide by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s privacy “only when a person has a legitimate expectation to privacy” (FindLaw). This means the police cannot search person’s home, briefcase, or purse. The Fourth Amendment also requires there to be certain requirements before a warrant can be issued. The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant “when the police search a home or an office, unless the search must happen immediately, and there is no opportunity to obtain a warrant” (Heritage). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people, but also the safety of the people. When there is probable cause, a government official can destroy property or subdue a suspect. The Fourth Amendment prevents government officials from harassing the public.
The term reasonable suspicion is a lesser standard than probable cause. It is a general belief that a crime is occurring, or has occurred. Reasonable suspicion can’t be only a hunch. It has to be based on the facts at hand and the reasoning from those facts that will lead someone else under the same circumstances to believe that a crime has occurred. The standard reasonable suspicion only allows law enforcement to temporarily detain, question, and frisk. It does not allow officers to search or seize because that will require probable cause. Probable cause is a set of facts and circumstances that would lead someone to believe that someone else has committed a specific crime. Probable cause is the next level of belief in order to arrest, search, and charge someone of a crime. Racial profiling, a controversial issue, has become a common problem in the police field. Some have said that they were stopped for being black, or Hispanic. Racial profile is a different problem; reasonable suspicion can’t be based on merely race, or ethnicity. For example, in my personal experience, I usually think anybody that is out late is suspicious. If I see someone walking by the neighborhood at night, I just obser...
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.
Probable cause is a reasonable ground to believe the existence of facts warranting certain actions. Meaning, no officer can't make an arrest inside someone’s home unless they have a warrant. Officers can't establish probable cause by saying “I just had a hunch that the defendant was a burglar” or something like that. Probable cause has to come from specific facts, details and circumstances, rather than “suspicious”. The judge will not count and will dismissed the case for not having a probable cause. The officer can't conduct searches and seizures without a warrant from a judge under certain circumstances, unless the person gives their consent. To obtain a warrant, an officer needs to describe the event, place to be searched and sign as to
Probable cause is reason to believe that a crime has taken place or that the person’s property is in connection to some sort of criminal activity. In order to make an arrest without a warrant, probable cause must be present. Probable cause is a very important factor in the criminal justice system. No arrest, search or seizure can take place unless valid by reasonable belief. Searches that are made without a warrant, is deemed unreasonable with exception to exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances, is when there is not enough time for an officer to secure a warrant and action has to be taken place. Although the spontaneous nature of the event is warrantless there still has to be probable
To conclude, the motion to suppress can be excluded unless granted or erred by a judge. The police officers in this case failed to accept responsibility of abuse of authority by violating the 4th Amendment right of the United States Constitution, by using probable cause with an invalid unreasonable search and seizure of the suspects. Hearsay is defined as an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in that
In the case, whereas, Stacey is a suspect in an embezzlement investigation; the police believes she is hiding evidence in her neighbor’s home. Yes, law enforcement officer can obtain a search, under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, police may engage in "reasonable" searches and seizures. (FindLaw, 2017) However, the police must obtain a warrant of an affidavit for probable cause from a judge. The officer in Stacey’s case had the reason of suspicion to believe Stacey was hiding evidence upon being investigated. Depended on the exigent circumstances a search may be conducted with or without a warrant. The fact that Stacey’s neighbor refuses to consent, the officer will have to obtain a search warrant. The police may not perform a warrantless search anywhere a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy unless one of the warrant exceptions applies. (FindLaw, 2017) In Stacey’s case, the law enforcement officers must act quickly to prevent the destruction of evidence, and the successful flight of the suspect. "Warrantless searches that occur when exigent circumstances exist are valid" (Hall, 2014, p. ) If Stacey’s neighbor does not have a private investment in the items or evidence, the police can take them into custody and, in effect, no "search" has occurred.
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).
An exigent circumstance that allows the police officers to enter an individual’s house without a warrant is justified when the police are in pursuit of someone who is fleeing away. For example, in United States v. Santana case, Santana fled away to her house when the police were trying to pursue her. They entered her house, and the case was considered an exigent circumstance. The police officers reasonably believed that the suspect was going to dispose the drugs
After an officer of the law prepares the search warrant, it then must be approved and issued by certain judicial officers, who have been specifically authorized. These magistrates that are given this specific authority are clerks of court, complaint justice, justice of the peace, and judges. The grounds for which these magistrates may issue warrants are probable cause must be established and an affidavit. The affidavit should inform the magistrate of the criminal offense being committed, the siezable evidence, the time, the place, and the method in which the law enforcement will use to identify the appropriate premises or
Police officers obtain warrants by providing a judge or magistrate with information that the officers have gathered. Many places have a judicial officer whom is available around the clock to issue warrants. If the suspect, who may be connected with the place to be searched, is not present when the warrant is issued and therefore cannot contest where as there is probable cause before the magistrate signs the warrant. The suspect can later challenge the validity of the warrant with a pre trial motion. In general, when deciding whether to issue a search warrant, a judge or magistrate will likely consider information in an affidavit reliable if it comes from any of the following sources: a confidential police informant whose past reliability has been established or who has firsthand knowledge of illegal activity, an informant who implicates himself or herself as well as the suspect, an informant whose information appears to be correct after at least partial verification by the police, a victim of a crime related to the search, a witness to the crime related to the search, or another police
Criminal procedures are intended to defend both the innocent and the guilty from aimless use of substantive criminal laws and from abusive treatment of law enforcement, the courts, or members of the justice system. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures while investigating criminal activity and building a case against a particular suspect. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, and no Warrants should issue, but rather upon reasonable justification, bolstered by Oath or affirmation, and especially depicting the spot to be sought, and the persons or things to be seized Law enforcement officers are endowed with
The legal terms of Reasonable Suspicion and Probable are important in any criminal case. Probable cause can be defined simply as that any officer must possess sufficiently trustworthy facts to believe that a crime has been committed. There are cases where an officer may need only a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct a limited search. Reasonable suspicion can be defined as any officer has sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is happing. Reasonable suspicion is usually used to justify a brief frisk in a public area or a traffic stop (Wright, R. 2013).