He took his time to verify that his suspicions were valid conclusions for the actions he witnessed. Next, in the case, Texas v. Brown [103 S. Ct. 1535 (1983)], it states in order for the plain view doctrine to work second, the officer must discover incriminating evidence “inadvertently,” which is to say, he may not “know in advance the location of …evidence and intend to seize it,” relying on the plain view doctrine only as a pretext In this situation, The police officer had approached the men on the fact that he thought that the two men were about to hold a stick-up at Macy’s. The police officer then performs a pat-down on the man, not knowing there would be incriminating evidence in his pocket. Last, in the case, Texas v. Brown [103 S. Ct. 1535 (1983)], it states that in order for the plain view doctrine to be effective, it must be immediately apparent to the police that the items they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. Using his plain touch (pat-down to determine whether the suspect is armed or not) on the outside of the man’s clothing, the officer felt a gun in his pocket.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous. October 31, 1963, while on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, Cleveland Police Department Detective Martin McFadden, age 62, saw two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on a street corner at 1276 Euclid Avenue and acting in a way the officer thought was suspicious. Detective McFadden watch these two guys going back and forward doing the same routine about a dozen times staring in the same store window. Next, Detective McFadden saw another third person join in the transaction named Katz exchanging words casing out the store front and Katz walking away. So Detective McFadden approached the three and begun to ask questions.
In the court 's language, “ We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others ' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken”. (Terry v. Ohio, 1968) (Wright, 2013). An example of reasonable suspicion would be if an officer is in a neighborhood and he has been notified of drug dealers in the area and sees a man walking up to cars and making handshakes which could indicate a drug exchange and then the officer walks up and confronts the man on reasonable suspicion, but if the officer actually seen the man handling the drugs then his would be considered probable cause. When there is no reasonable suspicion or probably cause in a criminal case then the suspect is acquitted of all the allegations against them and the case will be dismissed due to the lack of
In such cases, it is immaterial whether the attacker has committed a serious felony, a misdemeanor, or any crime at all” (Katzenbach et al., 1967). Although this appears to be a sound example of a good policy set forth in the report, it is too opened ended and appears to go against other detailed guidelines that the report states, such as the outlines that specifically say when a weapon can and cannot be used. As we know, many times the usage of a firearm is unwarranted by police (Katzenbach et al., 1967) therefore, can the idea stated above, which outlines that police are supposed to make a choice about what kind of force they should make, undoubtedly in the heat of moment, truly offer protection if we know that the decision often made is unwarranted? Through the Report’s guideline no one can be safe because of the variation and differing degrees of safety that it
He argued that while he agrees that there was a search and seizure, he does not believe that probable cause for the search and seizure was present. He outlines the clear and stark difference in the probable cause and the charge filed. Douglas also defines “probable cause” and “reasonable suspicion” as wholly independent identities. Additionally, Douglas develops the issue of probable cause being befitting of the crime suspected by acknowledging the basis of a warrant and holds that the probable cause that the officer has must be to the same standard as the warrant a magistrate or judge would sign. In Douglas’s argument he points out a large oversight of the rest of the court concerning probable cause.
In the criminal justice system a police officer or crime scene investigator cannot legally search a person or property without a search warrant. There have been ongoing debates and revisions on the legal requirements and circumstances under which it is necessary to obtain a search and seizure warrant before crime scene processing. According to the Fourth Amendment search and seizure requirements, a warrant is required any time a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. Therefore, in an effort to protect the right of the people and their belongings against unreasonable search and seizures and up hold the law officials accountable for fair treatment and processing procedures. When a crime scene investigator comes upon the scene, they must have a search warrant.
Identify all those affected by the decision. Officer Sullivan and Melin are affected by the decision because they might can be charged with perjury giving a false statement about the weapon being place in the trunk and being delivered to the police station. 3. Describe the harms and benefits for all those affected under option 1, then option 2, and so on. Option one is to give a true statement, to keep the officers from being placed on modified duty or other actions that might take place against them.
So our opposition clearly wants to make the situation worse by ignorantly indicting police officers without a grand jury? This proposition means that potential defendants are not present during grand jury proceedings and neither are their lawyers. The prosecutor gives the jurors a "bill" of charges, and then presents evidence, including witnesses, in order to obtain an indictment. These proceedings are secret, but transcripts for the proceeding may be obtained after the fact. Prosecutors like grand juries because they function like a "test" trial and enable prosecutors to see how the evidence will be received by jurors.
Comey believes police officers have the right to be forceful when confronting a suspect. He also indicates that videos of police brutality should not be posted or distributed in any way. Not do only this sounds absurd, but it also sounds as though it is not significant if some of the people who are arrested are also brutally treated. If police officer can be abusive and treat their suspect roughly then they would be breaking Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (US Const. amend.
Self-defence is an act of defending yourself or others against means of harm or in the action of crime prevention. As defined under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 it states that ‘a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime. Self-defence is also mentioned in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The CJIA Section 76(1) provides that ‘in deciding whether the force used is reasonable, considerations must be taken into account so far as relevant in the circumstances of the case’. Self-defence is split into two sections, private defence and public defence.