probable cause is to be clearly established by law enforcement in order to conduct a legal search of your property or your person. Consent from the individual to allow the search can substitute the probable cause, if none exists for law enforcement to act upon. This is applicable to individual searches, vehicle searches and searches of your home or any other property. For example, if law enforcement stops you exiting a convenience store and suspects you of shoplifting, they must first establish the probable cause or reasonable suspicion to detain you lawfully. If this is done correctly, through either witness information or firsthand observation, then law enforcement can request a search of your property (e.g.
What Brady v. Maryland inspires is a duty upon prosecutors to search all the government files for “Brady” material. If it the any material consistent with the “Brady” ruling exists, it must be voluntarily disclosed by government counsel. However the issue that both prosecutors and defense lawyers have in reference to Brady v. Maryland ruling is it difficult for a prosecutor to decided whether certain evidence is exculpatory to a defendant. Unless a prosecutor can predict with a magic eight ball and wand exactly what a defendant’s defense will be during trial, they may not recognize an exculpatory significance of paperwork or evidence that the government is in possession
The third amendment protects us from housing soldiers during war or peace. Unless you allow them to go into your home. The fourth amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. The government must have probable cause cause or a good reason to search you. They also can 't search or take items from you without a warrant.
This is because it is applied as police carry out their daily routine activities such as preventing crimes, searching, arresting and charging suspects. Given the ambiguous nature of the existing criminal laws concerning the scope and dealings of conflict and disorder situations, alongside the limited resources allocated to the police departments, and variations in nature of offences; police discretion becomes a principle part for officers to give weight to law enforcement (Griffiths, 2013: 122). First of all, individual officers in streets and fast areas has to decide whether an incident they are coming across fits into the definition of an offence as stipulated by the law and to what extend are they to be subjected to judgement. For instance, in a case of an assault, the law does not give further definitions on whether it is simple or aggravated assault. So it is the mandate of the officer to what kind it fits
The principal problems arising in that part of the criminal process which governs events before trial relate to the nature of police powers and procedure in the investigation of offences. The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 confers wide powers upon our police of making arrests. In addition to the power of arrest, the code bestows upon the police powers parallel to the magistrate to release and arrest person on bail. I. When Police may arrest
Criminal law brings the power of state, with all its resources to bear against the person. Criminal procedures are designed to protect the constitutional rights of individuals and to prevent the arbitrary use of authority of the part of the government (Miller, 2013). The United States government provides specific safeguards for those accused of crime and most of these safeguards guard individuals against government actions, as well as federal government actions of the due process section of the Fourteenth Amendment. The constitutional safeguards are set forth in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. This paper describes the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments from the viewpoint of adult and juvenile criminal court proceedings.
1 Kurt was arrested for the noise ordinance and possession of illegal and drug paraphernalia. Any search needs to be with a warrant. The fourth Amendment “the right of the people to be secure in their person against unreasonable searches and seizures…. but upon probable issue.” The Ex Post Facto “is kind law that is used after an act is committed to make it illegal even it was legal when done.” In the case of Weeks V US 232 U.S. 383 the supreme court addressed this issue. The Fourth Amendment “…protect citizens against warrantless searches of homes and papers and effects.” The officer Vidal has all right to arrest Kurt since he got the warrant, at same time when no one is presented or o one home the officer needs to wait or came back in other time, but he got in and found the marijuana and other drug.
It is necessary to lay down statutory guidelines regarding the procedure to be followed by the law enforcement officials during investigation of the criminal offences so that they do not resort to illegal arrests, unlawful searches and seizures, coercive interrogation and illicit means to collect evidence. Procedural norms are essential for regulating the proceedings in the court of law. The procedural provisions are indispensable components of any penal statue. In the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, all the procedures required to be followed by the enforcement officials during the investigation have been exhaustively dealt with. However, many of the procedural provisions are complex, cumbersome and impractical.
The last power I’m going to talk about is how the police have codes to protect them against any accusations that the suspects make. The first example of this would be the tape recording of proceedings that the police use when they conduct interviews when with a suspect. There are mainly two reasons why the police use tape recordings in interviews with suspects. The first reason is because it shows that the police are doing the interview right and are following procedures just like they are supposed to. Tape recordings are to make sure that the police aren’t threatening the suspect or doing anything they shouldn’t be doing, so if the suspect accuses them of doing so, the police will have proof that what the suspect is saying isn’t the true.
A different federal judge ruled that if the DEA wishes to use a stingray to bring in a criminal then they must have a warrant to use it [source]. The argument that a lot of people will make when it comes to surveillance is that if you’ve done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide. If we apply that same logic to this specific case, then we might as well say that the government should be able to put a unique tracking device on each one of us that we must always carry around. Many people would probably no want to be constantly tracked by the government openly, so why should we be okay with tracking us whenever they want, just without announcing it? We are afforded legal protections for most other private areas in our lives so why should we have almost no rights when it comes to something that we depend on and use every day?
Section 8 states that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search, but in this bill it is said that police can search you at any time when they suspect some unusual behaviour. I can relate Section 9 because the police now have the right to detain anyone without getting consent from the judges. I believe that these sections apply best to this