Legal Or Illegal Action 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

When an officer has probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a criminal activity. Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009).

Reasonable Suspicion: is the legal standard by which a police officer has the right to briefly detain a suspect for investigatory purposes and frisk the outside of their clothing for weapons, but not drugs. While many factors contribute to a police officer’s level of authority in a given situation, the reasonable suspicion standard requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime.

Moreover, in some cases, yes, the police and a few government officials do sometimes misuse the reasonable suspicion and probable cause, however, in most cases it is all sorted out by the time it reaches court. That being said, one of the more disturbing flaws in this article is that the reader is obtaining a misconception of the definitions of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. For instance, there is a distinctive difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause. To better explain, reasonable suspicion is more of a feeling officers will get, such as sensible, rational or justifiable (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 204). In contrast, probable cause is used when someone, usually of the law enforcement variety, has a sound belief, supported by evidences and circumstances, that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 205). This article in question, did not explain the differences and even misused the terms reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and finally, only referenced one instance where an officer unjustly used probable cause. The officer in question received an anonymous tip in regards to a crime being committed, which legal gave

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.

Offer Jones did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop and confront the individual. As law enforcement officer Jones should contact his supervisor and inform them about the tip that he received about possible drug activity at that location. He could have got authorization from his supervisor to conduct surveillance to verify that there was actually drug activity going on at that location. But because this officer decided to stop the individual without concrete evidence made his actions

The initial stop was legal due to the factor that the officer thought the taillight was nonoperational. Officer Taylor was allowed to frisk the driver when the officer suspected the driver may have committed a crime, and the factor of the driver speeding off gave him right to pursue. The weapon was in plain view and the marijuana is admissible in court because the driver was being arrested for fleeing. Search and seizure laws protect citizens, but in this case, the driver isn’t protected when they don’t conclude the initial traffic

FACTS: In Lexington, Kentucky officers were suspicious of a subject who was suspected to be a drug dealer. The officer initiated an observance of the subject’s movements and followed the subject to an apartment where the odor of marijuana was admitting. The officers made their presence known and immediately heard sounds that the believed were indications that the subject was destroying possible evidence. The officers knocked and explained they were making entry into the room. The officers forcefully enter the apartment and observed the primary subject, additional subjects, and drugs including paraphernalia in the open. The subject was brought to The Circuit Court where the court denied the motion of the defense team to remove the evidence from the case based on the entry of the officers being unjust due to not having a proper search warrant. The defense team entered a guilty plea to obtain the authorization to appeal The Circuit Courts ruling. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed this request which prompted The Supreme Court of Kentucky to reverse the decision. This action was based on the courts assumption that additional exigent circumstances did exist however, it did not proved the officers the proper authorization to conduct a

Officer had probable cause to affect a traffic stop after he observed defendant following too closely. Defendant's and passenger's behavior after stop provided reasonable suspicion to expand the detention, and a positive drug dog sniff provided basis for search of vehicle.

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent

First, it confirms that a proper understanding of constitutional law is extremely important and that without proper documentation, it's moot. In this instance, it appears that the officers could have easily based their search on the Motor Vehicle Exception (the person had narcotics in his possession), but instead, they based their search on an inventory...and documented it in that manner. Unlike the case above, the court did not take that into consideration...they merely ruled on the contested point (whether or not towing the vehicle was lawful). In this instance, the court said that the vehicle was legally parked and the officers had no justification to tow. As such, the search (and case) was lost. This one seems like a no-brainer as far as what exception the search should have been based on...we always (I hate using the word always, since it'll make a liar out of me) base our vehicle searches on the Motor Vehicle Exception when we can. It's the most easily defended. All we need to document is our probably cause. If we have that, there isn't much to contest. Then the defendant has to fall back to whether or not we had a legal right to be where we were (valid stop...). The last point, keep in mind that contempt of cop is not a valid reason to tow a vehicle (that's like fining them before the conviction...they have to pay to get their vehicle out). If the vehicle is not evidence, and is legally parked, leave it if that's what is

Probable cause and reasonable suspicion in law enforcement are important terms used as a guideline to police offers or law enforcement agencies (Lushbaugh, 2012). Each officer is required to deal with every circumstance in light of the reasonable justification. Law enforcement officers and agencies are usually required to determine if there is sensible doubt or probable cause that can lead them to performing and taking part of certain actions in regards to a specific criminal circumstance. Probable cause is characterized as the activities or actions that are obvious and directs towards being part of evidence. The confirmation of evidence is acquired and obtained rationally in which will provide the officer with the knowledge of knowing one has committed a crime.

1. Did officer Smith have reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop of this vehicle?

Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which another officer in the same circumstances could reasonably suspect a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. This would mean that a crime occurred and the said suspect is more likely than not the perpetrator. The suspect has the mental capacity, the obvious opportunity, and the capability to perform the crime under investigation.

3. The arresting officer thought Hansen was there with the suspect, that there was reasonable cause that the suspect had a marijuana cigarette, and that there was probable cause to believe both of them were smoking that marijuana cigarette. The officer said in his past experience when two or more people are seated next to each other, it's common that they all pass around a cigarette and smoke it together. He also said that probable cause is a "practical, non-technical conception,” but that does not make this a lawful arrest. Probable cause to arrest someone without a warrant exists if the arresting officer knows facts and circumstances that will justify the belief to a reasonable person that the individual arrested had committed a felony. The