Essay On Search Incident

Mapp vs. Ohio On June 19, 1961, the Mapp v. Ohio case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C. The situation addressed in court was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that people have the right to be secure in their houses, and it forbids unreasonable searches and seizures.

At the conclusion of the case in a 6 to 3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy the court had determined that the Act’s retroactive requirement did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because the Act is considered non-punitive since it was intended as civil means of identifying previous offenders in order to be able to protect the public by making them

The "actual control" clause indicates situations when a car is parked and running, parked and stalled, or is capable of being driven at any time by an intoxicated person. However, R.v. Boudreault in 2012 set a test for the rule of law which provided that the Actus Reus is not enough to charge someone, one must also have a guilty mind (Mens Rea). Which means, there must be enough evidence for the prosecutors to show that the accused person intended the act. Although, the officer had a reasonable suspicion, there is just not enough evidence to convict Noway.

In addition, in the article“Not Race Alone” it states “ When officers follow leads and stop people, they do use profiling, but it is profiling based on all actionable intelligence, which includes race as one of many criteria” ( Dutta 2). This supports the statement racial profiling is used as a criteria because it allows to find people who commited crimes and stop them. This explains how racial profiling is used for actionable intelligence. Racial Profiling plays an important role

Use of force is the amount of force used in a given situation during police work. The police are supposed to follow the continuum when it come to using force. This continuum is known as the “Use of Force Continuum”. Despite this, use of force is still a constant problem in policing. There are many cases where a cop are sued for using more force than necessary, sometimes on purpose and sometimes by accident.

An officer may only be allowed to search a person 's personal belongings if their reasoning is associated with a lawful arrest and if they have a probable cause to search (Matthews). After it being a huge deal in New York, other cities and states began embracing the use of stop-and-frisk as it began growing around the United States. In the 1950s police officials in other cities took up, and expanded, the stop-and-search tactics by using the LAPD to embrace the theory of crime

2. What would have been the proper investigative steps to take? The right investigative steps would be to watch the man and when they had probable cause or enough evidence for a warrant then they could take action. They could ask to come in and if he lets them in and they find something in plain view then they can use that to arrest him.

Evaluate the effectiveness of the ‘cardinal principles’ enunciated by Prof. Ian Dennis vis-à-vis reversal of burden onto the defendant in criminal cases. To what extend does it achieve it’s purpose? Introduction In Woolmington v DPP, Viscount Sankey LC laid down the golden thread rule (also known as concept of presumption of innocence) which presumed the defendant is innocence until proven guilty by the prosecution by proposed “Throughout the web of the English criminal law, one golden thread is always be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt…”

There are limits to their power. Throughout history, there have been several cases that helped shed light on the rules and regulations of searches and seizures. If I was given the opportunity to give a basic course to police officers about the legal boundaries of searches and seizures that is to guide them in their activity, I would inform them on the correct manner of handling a search and seizures to stop any unlawful behavior. In the first lesson of the course, I would inform the police officers to know the difference in between reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

Police Officer Duties During Domestic Violence Investigations In police work, each investigation has a specific set of duties and responsibilities that officers must carry out in order to successfully prosecute a suspect. Because victims want justice against the suspect, police officers must make sure to perform their duties to the utmost highest level that they can perform them. However, out of the various types of crime, domestic violence is possibly the most rigorous crime to deal with during an investigation. Because of the amount of work needed to prove the crime of domestic violence, it is no surprise that police officers have a lot of duties to perform whenever a domestic violence crime arises.

Police power to stop and search individuals in England and Wales is governed by ss. 1 and 2 of PACE, Code of Practice A (CoP), section 60 (s60) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and section (s47) of the Terrorism Act 2000 (which replaced the powers of stop and search under section 44 (s44) of the same Act). Police officers have the power to stop and search individuals under these Legislations. The police are however restricted in certain situations to stop and search. Under ss.

608 F. 3D 614 (9th Cir. No. 08-55662, files 6/18/10, withdrawn and amended, 11/30/10) in a 42 U.S.C section 1983 action based on defendants-officer 's use of a taser on plaintiff at a traffic stop, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where, viewing the circumstances in the light most favorable to plaintiff, defendant 's use of the taser was unconstitutionally excessive force and a violation of plaintiff 's clearly established rights.  Police must have reasonable grounds to use a taser.  Officer Brian McPherson used excessive force when on July 24, 2005, he deployed his X26 taser in dart mode to apprehend Carl Bryan for a seatbelt infraction, where Bryan was obviously and noticeably unarmed (he was wearing

The first case that caused the Supreme Court to allow officers to authorize a search and seizure, was the Terry vs. Ohio case in 1968. The case ruled whether or not it violated the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protection from an unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court then determined that the practice of stopping and frisking a suspect in public does not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the officer has a “reasonable suspicion”. Suspicions such as a person that may seem like they’re planning a crime, have committed a crime, or that may be armed and appear as dangerous. The reason why this policy escalated was due to an incident that happened On October 31, 1963 in Cleveland, Ohio.

The landmark case isn’t too hard to understand, a child was stripped down to being almost naked and had to expose herself to be searched for headache medicine even though she complied with all of the questions and answered truthfully. “… The court of appeals held that Ms. Redding’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated. It reasoned that the strip search was not justified nor was the scope of intrusion reasonably related to the circumstances.” This was one of the landmark cases that truly challenged the rights stated in the

The public will view the throat hold as the excessive use of force; however, the search to acquire the evidence to substantiate the charge, could not have been obtained in a less intrusive manner. The case R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301, saw the throat hold being used by RCMP officer to secure the accused while a search was conducted on the apartment. This provides evidence that throat hold performed by the officer is a common method used against individuals suspected of involvement in drug trafficking (R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301). The RCMP officer used the throat grab in this case as an instinct as a result of training (R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301). The constable also mentioned that he had used the hold on numerous occasions without performing a search (R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301).