Case Name: Andrea v Clarence To determine if the arrest of Clarence was lawful, one must first determine if the police officers were trespassing at the time of the arrest. Did the police officers trespass on another ’s land in order to arrest Clarence? The police officers would be found to have trespassed if it was established that; • The action was direct and intentional • The police officers entered and/or remained on another’s land • The police officers were present on the land without consent or lawful justification
After a consent search has been given that then makes everything that the police officer finds admissible evidence. A warrantless search can also apply if it falls under the Plain View Doctrine. The Plain View Doctrine deals with evidence of criminal activity that a police officer can see prior to entering or conducting an initial search. If criminal activity is observed, then a police officer may enter without a search warrant. Another reason why a police officer may be able to conduct a warrantless search is due to an emergency exception.
A person's Miranda rights can be waived either expressly or impliedly. An express waiver is when someone acknowledges in some manner that they are aware of their Miranda rights and voluntarily give up those rights. An implied waiver, however, is "valid if, under the totality of circumstances, evidence shows that a suspect knew of his or her Miranda rights and then voluntarily waived them" (Ferdico, Fradella, & Totten 514).
Some examples of when warrants are not needed are arrests. Cops do not need warrants to arrest a criminal if they see the crime being committed. On the contrary, you always need a warrant to arrest someone in their own home. Some more examples of when law enforcers do not need warrants are automobile searches and emergencies. Police do not need a warrant in these situations because time is crucial.
It is another instance of social defense. Locking up a child who has not yet been found guilty because he or she might commit another offense or might not appear for a court hearing amounts to preventive detention. Although adults charged with crime have the benefit of a bail hearing and the criteria and determination of whether bail is warranted is clear, no such mechanism exists in the
The malice aforethought is the criterion with which the level of viciousness is measured, and also draw a line between murder and manslaughter. Manslaughter occurs when a crime of killing a human being is not intentional, that is because He or She does not wish to do so but it was a consequence
They would probably be more lenient when it came down to using to use excessive force. Instead of automatically reaching for their gun, the officer would try to talk to the person, only taking out their firearm if the other person had one or they feel threatened. You can’t feel threatened by a person with no weapon. The way excessive force is measure is through three questions: “First, what was the severity of the crime that the officer believed the suspect to have committed or be committing? Second, did the suspect present an immediate threat to the safety of officers or the public?
Euthanasia is allowing people to have an excuse to commit suicide, which can lead to abuse. Euthanasia can fall into the wrong hands and help people get away with murder/manslaughter and suicide. This can cost someone’s life prematurely, and cause pain to his/her loved ones. These people are giving up and/or causing pain to those around him/her. Making Euthanasia illegal would successfully prevent all the problems that come with legalizing Euthanasia.
II. GROUND REALITIES The practice that invariably seems to operate in the enforcement of criminal law is to arrest a person accused of a crime. The person is then taken to the police station. Thus apprehended, he is either released on bail or is detained in the police lock up pending his production before the court.
Contraband items that are owned without a right and are subject to seizure may be submitted into evidence without infringing upon the rights of self-incrimination, whether the seizure has been made with or without a warrant. Defore made it clear in his objection that the weapon was contraband, but the hat and bag were not. Yet, all of the items were submitted into evidence together. Defore’s objection did not favor one item over the other. If any of the items were admissible, his objection does not succeed.
First, the pro viewpoint is Stand your Ground laws allow citizens to protect themselves and their property without fear of prosecution. For instance, the law is effective; it is just misunderstood. Bradford Cohen, a past president of the Broward Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and
However, mere suspicion does not permit law enforcement officers to stop, question or frisk an individual. But, the officer can continue observing the suspected individual(s) to see if any higher level of suspicion develops. Reasonable suspicion is the lowest standard of proof. It is a conclusion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime. According to Terry v. Ohio, Reasonable suspicion grants permission to an officer to conduct a stop, question and possibly frisk.
The Supreme Court ruled, “... the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safely or that of others was in danger. And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or “hunch…” In other words, a police officer would be able to frisk an individual if they are concern with the safely of themselves or others. There must be reasonable suspicion. If we apply this legal test to the facts of Martinez case, we see that Officer Colon’s actions did not meet the test for a legal frisk because she did not have reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime, is in the process of committing, or is about to commit a crime to begin with.
After doing my research with these three articles I 've come to a conclusion that stops question and frisk is very effective. As much as it does not reduce crime it provides a sense of safety to the officer when he stops the pursuant. A police officer should have a reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk his pursuant. According to the article, The right to investigate and New York "Stop and Frisk" law " Mere suspicion is not enough but the knowledge and experience gained by trained officers should be considered by the court in determining if there was a reasonable caused"(235). According to Stop and Frisk (A Case Study in Judicial Control of the Police) by Herman Schwartz, " the power to search, the New York "stop and frisk" statutes provides temporary questioning of a person in public places search for a weapon"(434).