Additional officers were called to assist Rand and after they arrived, Officer Rand asked Alcala for consent to search the car and he said yes. Gonzales even assisted Officer Rand with the search by opening the trunk and glove department, over the course of the search
Another valuable search by law enforcement is the Stop and Frisk. Law enforcement officers have the right to protect themselves during brief interviews with citizens. A frisk is a limited pat down of the outer clothing that can occur to an individual when reasonable suspicion is suspected. Under the stop and frisk doctrine, law enforcement officers are looking for weapons.
1 Introduction Consent can be defined as voluntary agreement, compliance or permission. Consent is a unilateral act, and so consent may be withdrawn by one person. People are allowed to “waive their legal rights” if they choose to do so. This would mean that the victim, by consenting to suffer harm, excuses the wrongful conduct of the person who has inflicted the harm and thereby excuses him/her of being held liable.
I had the female step out of the vehicle when she did I told her to get her bag as well, she said it was not her bag. At this time I removed the bag from the vehicle and sat it on the toolbox located on the bed of the vehicle. The female then went to speak with Officer Woodruff. I later took the bag to Officer Woodrufff while he was speaking with the female. At this time a computer check reveled that Green had several warrants.
The officer’s failure to notify the defendant of his right to an attorney at law; this violated his constitutional rights. According to the officers, they were aware that they did not notify him of his rights. However, Miranda 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was found guilty in a court of law regardless; this was due to the written statement he had written and signed. The decision of the court was that Miranda was guilty, as a result he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years incarceration on each count.
This creates a situation that allows police officers discretion in the way they think about what they see and how they handle those with whom they come in contact. There has been an effort by the research community to examine issues concerning how police act and respond in general and what police do specifically when they interact with citizens. A conspicuous void in the research effort has been the lack of attention paid to the process by which police officers form suspicion about a suspect whether or not a formal intervention such as a stop was made. Officers in Savannah, Georgia were observed and debriefed after they became suspicious about an individual or vehicle. Observers accompanied officers on 132, 8-hour shifts, during
Although discretion is very important to an officer, it is influenced by different factors. One factor in particular, individual characteristics of the suspect, will set the stage to successfully detain a suspect with little to no injury. Other factors, like the law, and department policy, are implied guidelines and these factors should not be ignored. After the officer has made the decision to pull the vehicle over, the officer should begin to risk assess the situation. This standard of care will ensure that the officer and
In Aguilar v. Texas, it was held that “an affidavit based solely on the hearsay report of an unidentified informant must set forth "some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant was truthful and acting in good faith”. In this case, there was no information availed to the magistrate so as to make independent and reliable conclusion as to the prudence of the unidentified police informant. b) The seizure of other contraband items found on the person of Raul outside the
On 09/18/2016, at approximately 2148 hours, at the Durango Jail located at3225 W Gibson Ln Phoenix, AZ 85009 an Inmate/Inmate fight had occurred in Durango 3 B Pod between Inmate Moothery, Naz T303229 and Inmate Sams, Worine T284566. Upon entering Durango 3 B Pod, Inmate Sams approached Inmate Moothery and begun fighting by Durango 3 B Pod door. Multiple strikes were thrown by both inmates until Inmate Moothery had fallen to the Pod floor. At that time Officer Serrano approached the pod door and gave both inmates commands to stop fighting. No radio call was made due to both inmates complying with the orders given.
Arizona case argued whether or not “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect” (Oyez). Miranda, after two hours of interrogation, gave a written confession to the police saying that he was guilty. However, the police did confess that they had never informed Miranda of his Fifth Amendment rights, which included a right to an attorney, and because of this, the argument was made that the police had violated Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights. Warren, who was a part of the majority, in this case, decided in favor of Miranda, and that “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place” (Oyez).
Stark noticed the Officer Safety issue with interviewing the Victim in front of the door, and asked him to move to the side away from the flow of pedestrian traffic. Stark spoke with the Officer that had responded prior to our arrival and got the information that the Officer had already obtained. Stark re-interviewed the Victim, and come to the conclusion that the crime elements of PC211 were not met. I asked Stark what he believed the crime was, he stated PC 484 - petty theft. Stark gave the Victim a business card with the report number.
Not to mention all the undocumented people that feel oppressed by officers and scared to talk back to them with a “no”. In chapter two, the author presents a section titled Just Say No. In this section the author illustrates a time where two police officers stopped a bus to search for drugs. Police officers never warned individuals that they had the right to remain silent and, therefore, minorities were trapped and found guilty for carrying drugs. In addition, the book discusses the Florida vs Botsick case that states that people have the right to refuse answering the police.