Stop And Frisk Analysis

Referencing the case of Harper, 171 Ga. App. at 64, 318 S.E.2d 502, it stated that evidence cannot sustain a conviction “unless there is some peculiarity in the tracks to identify them as belonging to the accused.” The peculiarity requirement of Harper would only apply if the tire track impression was the sole evidence. Which this is not the case and, therefore, Harper did not apply here. In Brown V.

Racial Tension in Michael Brown 's case On August 9, 2014, eighteen-year-old Michael Brown was shot by Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri. The shooting caused protests and has drawn the world’s attention because Michael Brown was an unarmed black man while Darren Wilson is a white police officer. People believe

The rule is intended to prevent police officers from violating the rights granted by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, evidence obtained by the police that violates the Fourth Amendment cannot be used to convict someone accused of a crime. Some people think that without this rule, the Fourth Amendment would not make sense. As with many other legal rules, this rule has several exceptions.

Title: Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Date/Court: The United States Supreme Court, 1973 Facts: This case deals with Clyde Bustamonte, who tried to defraud a check. At 2:40 a.m. local Sunnyvale Police Officer James Rand stopped a vehicle that had a burnt out headlight and license plate light. When Officer Rand approached the vehicle he found that the individuals Joe Alcala, Bustamonte, and Joe Gonzales were in the front seat. In the rear of the vehicle Officer Rand saw three older gentlemen, Officer Rand then asked the driver if he had identification and the driver (Gonzales) did not have any. Rand then asked the other individuals in the car and only Alcala had a valid license, after producing his license Alcala told the officer that the car was his brothers.

The attorneys had requested for a complete public accounting of the case to be disclosed. Disclosure was opposed by the district attorney on the grounds that it would have a “chilling effect” on the witnesses, who are promised anonymity and also pressure on the prosecutor would pile up for pressure from public to deliver a certain result if secrecy was no longer sacrosanct. It is the secrecy that shield the grand jury from any kind of accountability with public is simply led in suspicion as to the techniques and prejudices that lead to a deliberation behind closed doors. In another case where Shabbir Ali Mirza was jailed by a majority in U.K. was alleged bias on the pretext that he presented evidence through an interpreter

Trayvon was on vacation to his father’s for the summer. One night, Martin was walking home when he was approached by a police officer doing neighborhood watch. Officer Zimmerman called into dispatch seeing Martin, the officer claimed to dispatch that Trayvon was a suspicious subject. Dispatch told the officer not to exit his squad car, Zimmerman refused and approached Martin anyway. As the officer approached Martin they got into an altercation as the officer reports, where Martin ended up dead at the scene.”

The most essential part of our judicial system is that it is based on the presumption that the accused is innocent unless proven guilty beyond doubt. Also it is better that ten guilty are held free than one innocent being falsely implicated in a case. Thus the burden of proof in a criminal case is very high. Circumstantial evidence is basically the evidence which is furnished not by direct testimony of an eye witness to the fact to be proved, but by relying on the fact or other auxiliary facts which can be relied upon as incompatible with any result other than truth of principal fact.

Paul Butler says, “Part of what may have made a difference to the jury was the officer’s very emotional reaction after the shooting. He’s somebody who realizes that he’s made a grievous mistake. It’s certainly an argument for a manslaughter conviction rather than a murder conviction. People who do harm in the heat of the moment still deserve punishment.” (Bosman and Smith 16).

Gallini (2009), who holds a Juris doctor, a master of law degree, and is widely recognized in the community for his opinions on interrogation techniques, is a firm disbeliever in the Reid Technique. He believes that “the methodology underlying the Reid technique fails every aspect of the Supreme Court’s standards governing the admission of expert evidence” and that evidence collected through the Reid technique should not be relied on (p. 529). In addition to Gallini’s beliefs, Dr. Christian Meissner, who holds a Ph.D. in cognitive and behavioral sciences, has stated in multiple texts that the interrogation methods used by law enforcement frequently produce false confessions. If the suspect believes that there is evidence against him, if he truly believes that all hope is lost, and then is offered a bargain. If he confesses he could get a lighter prison sentence.

The person is already suffering and on the other hand, police harasses him by not accepting the FIR. The police officer is duty bound to lodge FIR in every cognizable case. If a police officer gets a complaint from an aggrieved person about the cognizable offense, he must lodge a FIR. When a police officer refuses to do so, one must approach the SP of the concerned area regarding

Primarily, the attenuation doctrine serves to determine whether or not the unlawful actions directly caused the discovery of evidence. The Court ruled regarding each of the three factors of attenuation; it first decided that the issue of temporal proximity rests firmly in favor of suppression. In favor of the State, however, the Court held that the discovery of the warrant was indeed an intervening circumstance, attenuating the evidence on the grounds that the warrant was independent from the stop. The Court applied the Segura ruling, which held that the exclusionary rule does not apply “if the connection between the illegal police conduct and the discovery and seizure of the evidence is so attenuated as to dissipate the taint” (Burger) (Segura v. U.S. ).

One primary legislative cause of the difficulties in prosecuting police is the 1986 the United States supreme courts case, Tennessee v. Garner, which did not allows usages of deadly force by an officer unless "the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others" but the rhetorically vague term "good-faith belief" allowed an objective reason to kill and created a barrier in proving an officer is guilty in court system. While this old legislative piece accounts the difficulties in prosecuting police, the traditional unspoken rule of police officers not to report against colleagues cause corruption in the process of prosecution which is another source of

Jeremy went to the police to issue a complaint, because his house was searched, and left a mess. During his complain, Jeremy was question about his son and his confrontation with Crag, he deny everything. Now the detectives are letting him know that Crag was shot in his front yard. After Jeremy was interrogated and was of no help, the detective had no other choice but to reach out to the news. Four days after a local car dealer got in touch with the homicide squad; informing them that, they recently sold a black SUV to Sarah.

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.

On October 31, 1968, in Cleveland, Ohio a Cleveland police officer, named Martin McFadden, saw three men acting suspiciously around a jewelry store, which he believed they were casing a job. The officer, McFadden, walked up to three men and asked a few questions; afterwards, he proceeded to stop and frisk them. McFadden found a pistol in John Terry’s pocket, a revolver in Richard Chilton’s pocket and nothing was found on Carl Katz. The officer arrested Terry and Chilton for carrying concealed weapons and Carl Katz was sent free. Terry was convicted and sentenced to three years in jail.