Chimel V. Ohio: A Case Study

The officer did have reasonable suspicion to make contact and after locating the weapons he had his probable cause. There are four situations that Probable Cause is used; involving arrests with a warrant, arrests without a warrant, searched of items with a warrant, and searches of items without a warrant (V., D. C., & Walker, J. T., 2015). Most of my encounters with individuals occurs on traffic stops; which require probable cause to stop them. My probable cause could be speeding, reckless driving or any traffic violation in the traffic law manual. Once probable cause is established then contact is made with the driver. If there is reason to believe that there is more than a traffic violation, such as an officer smelling marijuana inside the vehicle, then he or she can now have access into the vehicle. My probable cause to get into the vehicle is based on my training and experience that there was or is illegal narcotics inside the vehicle. If there is no probable cause to get into the vehicle and an officer feels there is more to the traffic stop than speeding, then the officer needs to build his reasonable suspicion to figure out what the driver is up to. For example, one night on patrol, it was believed that there was a possible drug transaction going on in the

Police officers use search and seizure as a tool to ensure their safety, gather evidence, and arrest suspects. In police training, a search is defined as an examination of a hidden place, i.e. a person or their property, whose purpose is to find contraband (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). A seizure is defined as the capture or arrest of a person or the confiscation of property (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). Depending on the individual situation, a warrant may or may not be required to conduct searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule, which states that illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in court, has guided the definition of search and seizure, specifically as it pertains

Terry v. Ohio is an important case in law enforcement. What did the Court say in this case, and why is it important?

In the court case Worcester v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1832 that the Cherokee Indians and Samuel Worcester created a nation holding distinct sovereign powers. This decision did not protect the Cherokees from being removed from their tribal birthplace in the Southeast.

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

A possible civil action stemming from the provided scenario would arise as a violation of the suspect’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. Most lawsuits of violations of a subject’s Fourth Amendment rights are against unreasonable search, seizure and any use of force is properly analyzed as a seizure (U.S. Code, 1983).

Facts: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and states that an officer to have both probable cause and a search warrant in order to search a person or their property. There are several exceptions to this requirement. One exception to this is when an officer makes an arrest; the officer can search an arrestee and the area within his immediate control without first obtaining a search warrant. This case brings forth the extent of an officer’s power in searching an arrestee’s vehicle after he has been arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car. On August 25, 1999, the police responded to an anonymous tip of drug activity at a particular residence. When they arrived on scene, Rodney Gant answered the door

In United States v. Drayton, Christopher Drayton and Clifton Brown were traveling on a public bus, when police officers boarded the bus as part of a routine interdiction effort. As one of the officers walked through the bus, he did not inform the passengers of their rights to refuse or cooperate. As Drayton and Brown were asked by officers to provide ID, and officers declared that they were searching for drugs and weapons and asked if they could search their bags, and person. Brown agreed and a pat-down revealed hard objects similar to drug packages in both thigh areas. When Drayton agreed, a pat-down revealed similar objects. Both were arrested, and the District Court determined that the police conduct was not coercive and Drayton and Brown's

It would be true that once an officer has conducted a pat down search and determined that there are no weapons, he is not allowed to go further in searching without either consent or a warrant. On the other hand, it is not the law anywhere that such a search must be limited to the feel of a gun. Any object which might possibly be used as a weapon can be

To the everyday US citizen the United States Supreme Court is a nonexistent entity that is not often heard from or seen unless it reaches a decision on a controversial case. Mapp v. Ohio was one of the controversial cases that the Supreme Court made a decision on in 1961. What were the facts of the case? What constitutional issues are in question? What did the court decide, and what were there reasoning of the justices? What is the significance of the case?

At the turn of the twentieth century, a bourgeoisie fixation on capitalistic structures and mass consumerism often juxtaposed the call for meritocracy, thus placing some individuals at an advantage over others. Tension was soon evident between the beneficiaries and the exploited of the gilded economy. This push and pull relationship can best be observed in the 1908 Supreme Court case, Muller v. Oregon, in which the owner of a Portland Laundromat violated state legislation that disallowed women from working more than ten hours a day. Siding with the needs of the laborer, the Supreme Court overruled Muller’s claim for freedom of contract and right to property (Gagnon Lecture, 01/26/15). While many argue that this decision devalues the relationship between employee and employer as well as undermines an individual’s inalienable rights to life, liberty and property at the hands of another, there is an underlying, and perhaps even larger issue at hand. The ruling of the case indicates that judiciary actions taken only reinforce gender formations- once again attacking the plea for equal opportunity. Because of this alarming backlash in societal equity, the Supreme Court’s decision should be deemed unjust. Although the case recognizes the significance of employee rights in the workforce, the decision is restricted to the sole protection of female workers and only

One might ask, what is a Search incident to arrest? According to Norman Garland in our book Criminal Evidence, it is an exception to the warrant requirement that permits an officer without a warrant and further probable cause to search the person and certain areas around an arrestee incident to a lawful arrest. So essentially an officer has a right to search the person they have detained in the immediate area around them, immediate control or as it has been referred to the lunge and grab area of the person for weapons. This rule was instituted so that a person who is being detained cannot pull a weapon on officers and the officers can keep

A protective sweep beings that it is a brief sweep and also limited warrantless search of an arrestee’s home, which is permitted if the defendant is arrested therein (Hall, 2016.) The purpose of the sweep is to check the house for other persons who may pose a danger to the arresting officers (Hall, 2016.) I don’t believe that the protective sweep goes beyond the Terry v. Ohio case because each and every officer has a right to feel safe and protected once arresting an individual. In the case of Terry v Ohio, I do believe that the officer had every right to protect himself.

The officer felt a hard object, which could potentially be a weapon, allowing the officer to remove the object, which he immediately recognized as burglary tools. Under the plain view doctrine, I believe this evidence would hold up in court. The officer was lawfully present and the hard object removed from Tommy’s back pocket was immediately recognized as burglary tools. Because the frisk was legal, the arrest would be lawful and so would the search incident to arrest. I believe the tools and diagram would be entered as evidence and the case would

The trial judge concluded that MacDonald’s possession of the gun was unauthorized and that, “the officer’s pushing the door open further did not breach M’s s. 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search” (pg 38). The officer pushing the door