In the article, no evidence was given that the officers did not follow protocol, as they did not enter the resident’s home without permission or a warrant. Police are allowed to enter a home under the circumstances of someone resisting arrest. (www.qld.gov.au/law/crime-and-police/being-arrested-and-police-custody/being-searched/) In this case, the article does not go into much about the public disturbance that John Felix committed, but usually disturbing the peace does not warrant arrest.
Nieves reviewed the security cameras and observed today’s incident as told by Pendle. Based on in the information obtained during the course of the investigation I determined Bishop violated F.S.S. 812.13 robbery, by demanding Pendle give him his watch as he held on to Pendle’s arm with the intent to deprive Pendle of his property. F.S.S. 810.02 burglary by entering the business thru the drive thru window while on foot and remaining inside of an open business after permission was withdrawn by an employee, with the intent to commit an offense therein. F.S.S. 784.03 simple battery by intentionally touching Pendle against his
They searched for the suspect and equipment that could be evidence of the bomber being present there, but did not find any evidence of it. Instead, they stumbled upon a suitcase in Mapp’s house that became very suspicious. The suitcase contained pornographic material and had shocking pictures inside. Mapp told police the contents of the suitcase did not belong to her, they belonged to a guest. Mapp was then arrested when the material was found, prosecuted, and found guilty.
United States, 555 U.S. 135, 139 (2009). And in order to make effective the fundamental constitutional guarantees of sanctity of the home and inviolability of the person, the United States Supreme Court has held that evidence seized during an unlawful search could not constitute proof against the victim of the search. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487 (1963). And in Montoya de Hernandez, the court explained that "some searches of property are so destructive," "particularly offensive," or overly intrusive in the manner in which they are carried out as to require particularized suspicion, such as the present case. 473 U.S. 531(1985).
The police officers arrived at Ms. Dollree Mapp’s home, looking for a bombing suspect who was believed to be staying with Mapp. Officers knocked at her door and demanded entry. After placing a call to her attorney Mapp decided not to let law enforcement enter her home. (Landmark Cases) After a few hours, the officers returned to Mapp’s home with what they claimed was a search warrant (Landmark Cases); while, Mapp still wouldn’t allow them entrance; they used brute force to gain entry to the home. After the officers were inside of the house, Mapp grabbed the paper from the officers, and she was handcuffed “because she had been belligerent”.
While the idea of having two separate doors two gain access to the building is a potentially effective way of preventing crime, the building in question fails to take full advantage of the technique. Firstly, the second door as you are entering does not have a lock to it, so it is easily opened once the first door has been breached. Secondly, and most importantly, the fact that both doors open in the same direction mean that an offender would simply have to push the doors open with the force of their back/hip in order to leave the facility with heavy electronics. By having the doors open
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.
The fourth amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” To me, this means, in order for the American people to feel that they and their belongings are safe, only an official sworn into office can issue a warrant. This warrant can also be issued with probable cause, or reasonable belief, that some crime has been committed. Upon issuance of said warrant, the sworn official must specify exactly where police are allowed to search and the exact things or people they are allowed to look for and take in their investigation.
Describe one argument that supports “stop and frisk” policies. One argument that supports “stop and frisk” is the protection of the law enforcement and the community (Ivers, 2013). Ivers mention, “Chief Justice Earl Warren made clear that the "stop and frisk" exception was based on the need to protect police officers from criminal suspects carrying weapons” (2013). If there’s probable cause to stop a citizen, law enforcement should make sure the citizen they have stopped is not going to cause them bodily harm.
Riley v. California 573 U.S. ____ (2014) By: Jonathan Feltis December 16, 2015 Dr. Bobby Lomeli, AJ12 In 2014, the United States Supreme Court reviewed the case of Riley v. California and a very similar case United States v. Wurie, and decided on June 25, 2014, whether or not the data of a cell phone (smart phone) can be searched incident to arrest without a warrant. Before Riley v. California was decided, information about searching the data of cell phones was vague. There were differing rulings by state and federal courts whether or not police can search a cell phones digital contents without a warrant.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". The 4th amendment was made based on the Founding Fathers ' experience with the Kings agents and the all purpose writ of assistances that they used abusively. Without the 4th amendment, we would be at the mercy of the police because they could come into our household, search anything and take whatever they want. "A reasonable expatiation of privacy" the 4th amendment secures the protection of the
All three courts that the case went through decided that MacDonald’s Charter rights had not been violated by Boyd. This was because Boyd had a justifiable reason to believe MacDonald might be a threat to public safety, and he violated the right as little as possible in that specific situation. This decision does reflect the concept of liberalism in many ways. The fact that Boyd was a police officer was not the reason MacDonald’s accusation of a Charter breach was turned down. The decision was made with logic and reason, with no regards to either person’s position in society.
Unit 4 DB 1 Knock-and-announce rule Introduction Officers today have a hard enough job, so in order for them to comply with certain rules they need to make sure that any type of warrant that are being served is correct. They also need to make sure they do not just enter any type of building without any form of announcement. This paper will discuss the knock-and-announce rule, the exceptions to the rule, and provide the response of how they interpret and apply the knock-and-announce rule. Explanation of the knock-and-announce rule Within the creation of the common law, the knock-and-announce rule was born.