Definition Of Arrests

arrest a citizen unless he has probable cause of something suspicious happening. It is stated in

3. Arrest—The officer is not required to use the word ‘arrest’ to initiate an arrest. For an arrest to be considered legal, the following conditions need to exist. First, the officer has to have probable cause, the legal requirement for an arrest. Second, the officer has to deprive the individual of freedom, and lastly, the suspect believes that he or she is now in custody and has lost his or her liberty.

The standard for a legal arrest is probable cause. For an officer to make an arrest, he or she must have more than a mere hunch yet less than actual knowledge that the arrestee committed the crime (Peak, 2009). Law enforcement officers need to make certain they understand probable cause is different than reasonable suspicion. A good example of a reasonable suspicion encounter is Terry V. Ohio, where an officer who had 39 years of experience in law enforcement observed two men standing on a street corner. It appeared based on the officer’s experience the two men were casing a store because they both were walking up and down the street peering into the store windows, and then they would return to the corner to conference. While the officer

Search incident to Lawful Arrest- if an individual happens to be arrested lawfully they are no longer a free citizen therefore a police officer may search their persons and any areas that are within their reach. An example can be Mary is arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. She was stopped after swerving through the road and going at a very slow speed. A search of her vehicle found narcotics in the passenger side of the vehicle. She was herself and that was within her wingspan.

At final, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s ruling. The Court said that all claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force whether deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop or any other seizure of a citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, rather than the under a substantive due process. The court also stated that a seizure occurs when a law enforcment officer terminates a free citizen’s movement by a means interntionally applied. An officer may sieze a person in many ways including: traffic stops, investigative detentions, and arrests are all seizures under the 4th amendmet. To seize a person, an officer may yell, “stop”, handcuff, a baton, or a firearm can be used to comply the subject with officer orders.

In reality, many arrests are carried out without a warrant. This is either because the Police are called to the scene of a crime and must act rapidly, or because they do not know who is about to be arrested before they deal with an incident and therefore could not get a warrant.

A detention is reasonable when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, under the totality of the circumstance, provide an objective basis for suspecting the particular person detained may be involved in criminal activity. (People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224.) As such, an investigatory stop based on mere curiosity, rumor or hunch is an unlawful seizure, even though the officer may be acting in good faith. (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629.) Nonetheless, reasonable suspicion cannot be justified after the fact by evidence of criminal activity uncovered during the course of the detention. (People v. Gale (1973) 9 Cal.3d 788.) Moreover, mere proximity cannot be enough to create reasonable suspicion because proximity

Arrest warrant: When probable cause is established that a person has committed a certain illegal act, a written order is then issued by authority of the state

Law enforcement officers are known to “hunt for property or communications believed to be evidence of crime, and the act of taking possession of this property,” also known as conducting a search and seizure. It is a necessary exercise in the ongoing pursuit of criminals. Search and seizures are used to produce evidence for the prosecution of alleged criminals. Protecting citizens from arbitrary searches, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is our right to limit and deny any unreasonable search and seizure. More often than not, police officers tend to take advantage of their authority by the use of coercion. Although it is unlawful, most citizens do not know what police officers can and cannot do in respect of their human rights.

Even brief street detentions are arrests, and pat downs are searches, so the police can’t do anything unless they’ve got probable cause.

This allows them to diffuse the situation and to allow the parties to cool down. By arresting someone they are removing one of the parties from the situation completely. This protects the individuals in the middle of the dispute. He even states, "No officer wants to leave the parties together only to be

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

The Fourth Amendment tells us that people have the right to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizure. Unless there is a warrant which has been given for probable cause, authorities cannot enter your residence. This warrant must tell what is to be searched, whether it is a person, a home, or belongings, and it must be specific. This also means that probable cause applies in all arrest situations. “Probable cause is the likelihood that there is a direct link between a suspect and a crime.” (Fagin, 2012) The police must

In the amendments there are four that protect people who have been accused for a crime or arrested for a crime. These are the fourth, fifth, sixth, and the eighth amendments that give specifics on how the process should go and how the arrested person is to go through it. In the amendment they even say that the police must read you your rights when they arrest you, and if they don’t they can get in trouble.

There are precise rules that involve the stopping of an individual by the authority. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”. Specific distinctions within the Amendment are made in the prior case of Terry v. Ohio (392 U.S. 1 [1968]). These distinctions discuss the rules and regulations adherent to stops of individuals by the authority. According to Justice Warren, delivering the opinion of the court in this case, “the police should be allowed to ‘stop’ a person and detaining him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that the individual may be connected with criminal activity”. This statement basically explains that unusual conduct of an individual observed by the authorities can give reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. This reasonable suspicion is grounds for a stop and brief questioning by the authorities.