Eduardo Quintana Case

This case is one that changed the way the United States Police forces will work forever. Every human in the world has natural born rights. Even people who have been arrested have rights, ‘The rights of the accused’. These rights are the main point of this court case.

In this paper, I will be writing about Police Discretion. I will start by defining Police Discretion then briefly discuss the use in domestic disturbances, minor misdemeanors, and traffic enforcement. I will also discuss the application of police discretion, the provisions it uses and how it is currently practiced. At the end of these brief descriptions, I will then present the myth that exists in regards to police discretion. And finally, I will end this paper with my personal opinion as well as a brief conclusion.

Knowing ones rights when being arrested is very important, it is the best way to avoid self incrimination. The government has done a good job in assuring that all individuals who are arrested are read their Miranda rights and made fully aware of the rights that they are guaranteed as well as providing fair trial to all who are accused of a crime based on the rule set by the presumption of innocence: “innocent until proven guilty”. The purpose of this paper is to describe how the Miranda rights were

The arrest was not legal because there was no probable cause. It would be different if they had gotten a call of suspicion and a description matching that person. You can not just go on a gut feeling you need to have an actual probable cause. Frisk is the search for weapons. She was stopping this person to search for drugs. She also orders the man to put up his hands and does not ask if she can search. This could be because she thinks she has probable cause. Also the evidence would not be admissible because the arrest was not legal. The exclusionary rule would apply to this situation.

There could be several issues that arise with law enforcement seizing evidence from the passenger. Did law enforcement have a reasonable belief that the suspect had control of a weapon and that the suspect was also dangerous? Was the search of the passenger unconstitutional and did law enforcement invade the passenger’s privacy? Another thing to consider is if the evidence seized was part of the original reason for the officer conducting

The facts are that the police pushed past Victor’s mother to enter her home. Victor’s mother did not give them permission to enter her home to conduct a search or to seize any evidence. The police searched for and arrested Victor, searched his room, and seized shell casings. This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 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. As well as part I, article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution- Every subject hath a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. Therefore, all warrants to search suspected places, or arrest a person for examination or trial in prosecutions for criminal matters, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order, in a warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure; and no warrant ought to be issued; but in cases and with the formalities, prescribed by law. It is the right of citizens not to have their homes entered and searched unless a warrant has been issued. Since the police officers who pushed their way into Victor’s mother’s house were not invited in, they needed to have obtained a warrant before forcing entry, apprehending Victor and seizing empty shell casings in Victor’s

Facts: On August22, 2009, While David Leon Riley was driving, the police officer stopped him because he noticed that Riley is driving with an expired registration tags. At the same time, the police officer found that Riley’s license is suspended. Which led the officer to seize his car in order to turn it to the department policy. However, while passing through the process of impounding the car another police officer was searching in Riley’s car and suddenly found two handguns under the hood. As a result, Riley was arrested. After searching about Riley occurrence and situation, an officer found that Riley has some items that are related to a gangs and bloods the officer took Riley’s cell phone “a smart phone” from his pocket and search inside the phone, the officer found picture of Riley in front of a car that was used in a crime scene “shooting”, so based on that Riley was charged that he involved in that crime. However, Riley restrained The State Alleged which is an enhanced sentence according to the crimes the cave been committed to Riley, he restrained that because the officer violets Fourth Amendment which is prohibiting searching or seizing without a warrant. Finally, the trail court

An officer who reasonably believes that criminal activity is happening in a public place is authorized to stop any person who is

When it comes to the Fourth Amendment and searching a person’s car or their person, there are a few factors to take into consideration. In order for an officer to search an individual’s car, they must have consent, otherwise the search is unreasonable and whatever evidence seized could be inadmissible in the court of law. However, it is possible to conduct a search without consent and seize evidence without a warrant but there ought to be probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The two differ in the sense that reasonable suspicion is based off past experiences and expertise. Probable cause is needed for a search to take place; conversely if there is no probable cause but an officer has enough reasonable suspicion, they still are allowed to

Police in New York were approached by a woman who said she had been rape, upon further questioning she was able to give a description of her rapist. Before searching for the man the victim warned police that he was carrying a firearm, (FindLaw, 2016). The police found the man, Benjamin Quarles and frisked him which is when they discovered he had an empty shoulder holster, (Case Briefs, 2016). Police questioned Quarles as to where the weapon was to which Quarles responded with its location. After the weapon was obtained Quarles was read his Miranda Rights and was arrested. The trial and appellate courts of New York decided that Quarles’s statements prior to being read his Miranda warning and the gun inadmissible evidence for the trial.

“Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies. The Arizona Supreme Court correctly held that this case involved an unreasonable search. Accordingly, the judgment of the State Supreme Court is affirmed” (Stevens 2009).

Ms. Dollree Mapp, her lawyer and the majority of Supreme Court Justices believed the search by the police was illegal. Mapp and her lawyer argued the police officer presented no valid warrant or explanation at the scene. Justice Clark explained, “At the trial, no search warrant was produced by the prosecution, nor was the failure to produce one explained or accounted for” (https://goo.gl/W2N1xT). Moreover, Justice Clark stated that the evidence gathered in the search couldn’t be used as evidence since it violated Mapp’s Fourth Amendment rights (https://goo.gl/Qnn2c). This means, the search was considered unconstitutional and any evidence brought up during the search was considered “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Furthermore, Justice Clark noted

Once the officer felt a hard object that he believed to be a weapon in the suspects back pocket which is considered an outer pocket and falls under the Terry Frisk law, the officer was then allowed to conduct a limited search of that pocket and reach in to secure the object. Once the officer discovered that the object was a small 3x3 inch container full of locksmith tool which is illegal to possess as well as the totality of the circumstances, the officer had probable cause that a crime has been committed as well as another crime in the progress of being committed. Once the officer had the suspect in custody, he is authorized to conduct a search of the suspect, incident to arrest. In Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), the Court stated that an officer who has lawfully arrested a suspect can search their immediate area for evidence pertaining to the crime and for officer safety. The officer finding the diagram of the video/audio store in the suspect’s pants was evidence that was legally found since the officer had arrested the suspect based off of his probable cause. The fact that the diagram was that of the store that he was directly standing behind was additional evidence that he was there to

Seeing that there was illegal actions being taken and hiding of contraband being heard it cleared the part of not having to obtain a warrant by a judge or magistrate. Thus without these steps of illegal activity and making ones presence be known by a police officer of entering one, a police officer would have to have a warrant or the consent of one waiving their Fourth Amendment to be able to have a search or seizure be conducted.

This procedure, as established in Whren v United States (1996) and Tenessee v Garner (1985) is employed as a response to inferring threats. The reasonableness of this procedure is determined by standards set within the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment establishes “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures” (Lecture, Week 8), by requiring a probable cause through reasonable suspicion or “lower level evidence” (Lecture, Week 10) and consent to being pat down. This reasonable suspicion was established, but not reasonably defined in Whren v United States (1996) when they decided that higher crime rates of an area creates a reasonable suspicion for police to