Now everyone at this level has their own jobs to do; they recruit, or smuggle/ sell drugs, collect money, or kill. Of course everyone does a little of everything. Then the new recruits, they are still learning everything about the gang, and are watched closely. Chester and his friend were members, but they messed up when they talked about their gang’s inner workings. They were set up by their gang by placing a guy for them to kill and get arrested.
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. In this scenario, it was immediately apparent to the police
According to section 905 to “knowingly” enter or remain one must be aware or conscious. Meaning that to “know” you are entering or remaining, you are aware and conscious. Here, Brenda used a crowbar to enter the apartment “knowing” that she didn’t have a key to open the door without removing the hinges therefore required a tool to open the door. Thus, Brenda knew she entered the apartment.
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. Under option 2, is to give false statement of Francis weapon being placed
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.
Police officers in the United States are given considerable amount of authority to perform their duties. New York City’s officers are given the authority to Stop, Question and Possibly Frisk (SQF) an individual based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. SQF is also known as the Terry Stop. This procedure is conducted when an officer has reasonable suspicion to stop and question a suspicious individual. Next, a possible frisk can be conducted if the officer has a reason to believe that the individual is carrying or conceals a weapon or other contraband.
An exaplple of n the fourth amendment was being violated is the case, Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S 465, 475 (1921) is the case that stared the debate of public and private searches. this case is about a privtae person enterning and searching McDowell 's office. he seized specific papers and turned them over a public prosecutor who wantted to use it in court. Since eveince was not a pursuant and the government did not play a role in the prcoess of the searcha nd seizure the court ruled for the papers to be returned.
When a person fail to appear in court, a judge can issue a bench warrant for their arrest. With the bench warrant law enforcement can make an arrest and take the person into custody anytime. Law enforcement can also actively seek to execute the warrant at a person home or work place. Unfortunately, if they are released with a citation, fingerprints or photo (mugshot) are not taken. However, everyone that’s booked/arrested into county jail has there photo (mugshot) taken, and fingerprints.
Yes these cameras would make solving issues in cases much easier, but there are many who think this is a violation of their privacy to have an officer with a camera entering their house or looking into their car. It is understandable that someone would not want a rolling camera seeing into their home, but the ability to prove innocence or guilt in a court case should more than outweigh this temporary invasion. If someone is accused of something and the option of having a camera that could prove or revoke the accusation, or having no evidence to prove anything, which should be chosen? Should police officers carry body cameras? If so, should there be restrictions on when and where they can be used?
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.
I have a complaint, and wish a legal ruling prior to allowing a Correctional Officer to become involved in a legal battle or worse yet, injured: Currently, the Department of Corrections has the authority and directives for Officers to use force within the building or confines of their building. In some instances, where perimeter patrols are on duty, use of force directives apply. There are strict directives for Certified Officers to use force. When certified as a PTO and off institutional grounds these directives again apply. Moreover, these directives apply directly to those inmates who are property remand into the custody of the State.
They determine the locations of the victim, suspect, children or pets. Next, they determine if any weapons are involved or are there any weapons in the household. All parties are then separated and then interviewed. During the interview of the victim, the wife, the officers learn that the husband is involved in child pornography. The wife’s discovery of
Therefore, in my point of view Officer Smith should have waited for his backup and gone for a warrant to search the sex offenders home. I think the suspects could be the girls own parents, the sex offender, or even the neighbor who called 911 in the first place about the noise complaint.