Personal Experiences In Law Enforcement

Finally, consent search very supportive to police officer when they get consent to search the person property because instead of having the police officer getting warrant they can just search specific place for instances like a truck of a vehicle. For example, Strauss, Rebecca. Author of “We can do this the Easy Way Or the Hard Way: The use of Deceit to Induce Consent Searches." States, “Once the owner agrees to the search, the police have received consent to search any area in his home where they reasonably may find evidence of the crime they claimed to be investigating. Consent search is like general warrant fails to meet the fourth amendment particularity requirement because it to general. Strauss, Rebecca also states, “Like general warrants,

In the article of Scott Morgan “5 Reasons You Should Never Agree to a Police Search” he explains why we shouldn't agree to a police search. “You have the right to refuse random police searches anywhere and anytime.” It's your constitutional right so we could stand up to each other unless they have a probable cause. It's your privacy they might even break something when they are searching you.

(Nolo)” Several police officers tend to abuse their authority to attain evidence out of their reach. They often abuse their power because they know that the average citizen does not know their rights. Consent is a huge factor when it comes to determining if a search is lawful or not. The trial case of Arizona vs. Evans also determined that “the rule is not triggered when courthouse errors lead police officers to mistakenly believe that they have a valid search warrant, because excluding the evidence would not deter police officers from violating the law in the future. (Greenhalgh)”

The outlook for search and seizure (The fourth amendment) is all about privacy. Citizens have the right to deny searches or seizures of property or things unless the officer has a valid search warrant, valid arrest warrant, or probable cause."Probable cause has to come from specific facts and circumstances, not simply an officer's hunch, feeling, or suspicion." ("Search and Seizure", 2018). The police have grounds to believe they will notice proof that you just committed a criminal offense, and a judge issues a warrant or the actual circumstances justify the search while not a warrant initial being issued.

The Fourth Amendment provides citizen the freedom of privacy. The expectation of privacy is covered under the Fourth Amendment in order to protect this privacy. I strongly believe that an officer should obtain a search warrant in order to violate one's right to privacy when crossing the boundary of personal items. By searching an individual backpack, purse or wallet, one's privacy is invaded. According to the court in People v. Cregan personal items such as cigarette packs (found in pockets), wallets, or purses may be searched due to these items being inaccessibility of the individual at the time of an arrest. This ruling allows officers to violate one's privacy by searching these items; even though, the items are personal to the individual.

“The purpose of the exclusionary rule is not to redress the injury to the privacy of the search victim . . . . Instead, the rule's prime purpose is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures” (Estreicher & Weick, 2010, p. 4). They are saying is that the need for the rule is to deter illegal techniques that police use to obtain evidence, not to simply give more rights to the defendant. As Estreicher and Weick pointed out, “all of the cases since Wolf requiring the exclusion of illegal evidence have been base on the necessity for an effective deterrent to illegal police action” (Estreicher & Weick, 2010, p. 4). So instead of looking at the exclusionary rule as the end-all-right that citizens are

Police “working personality” is limited by an unquestionable tacit within the police subculture, surrounded by shifting perceptions, depending on the situation.

Although people in the United States are entitled to privacy and freedom there is a limit to that privacy. State or federal officers are allowed where justified to search your car, house, property in order to seize illegal items such as drugs, illegal weapons, stolen goods just to name a few. When the police do searches it can be for various reasons it depends on the situation. They can have a search warrant to go into a premises and confiscate illegal paraphernalia or when doing a routine traffic stop an officer might become suspicious of activity that is not normal and conduct a search of the vehicle to see why the driver is not acting normal. When conducting searches it is required sometimes to get a warrant which is a document

There has always been the thought that the police can abuse their power, especially when it comes to collection of evidence that could incriminate someone for something that was illegally obtained. The exclusionary rule was put in place to counteract evidence that may have been illegally obtained to be inadmissible in a court of law with few exceptions to the rule. Under the Fourth Amendment, the police cannot just force their way into someone’s home without probable cause. Even with probable cause, the police need to have the consent of the owner or a warrant that says they can search the premises, and that anything they find can be “used against you in a court of law” (Miller, 2016). The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important amendments to the criminal justice system. The Fourth protects citizens from the police obtaining things that could lead citizens to be convicted for something that they police did not have permission to obtain in the first place. The exclusionary rule was put in place by Mapp v. Ohio and Weeks v. United States. In Weeks V. United States, Weeks was convicted of “transporting lottery tickets through the mail” when police illegally search his home without a search warrant (oyez) The police went to his house where they search Weeks’s room and “took possession of various papers and articles found there, which were afterwards turned over to the United States marshal” (Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383, 1914). They then returned to weeks home to

Law enforcement is a career that is both violent and rewarding in many capacities. Justice needs to be served in law enforcement and they have a responsibility to uphold the law and serve the people in the community. Law enforcement is crucial in the world today as a global realm as life continues to be more complex and law enforcement struggles to combat many aspects of crime. In order to combat these problems and have a positive future in the criminal justice system, everyone must work together on a bigger scale.

As crime coexists with humanity, the presence of the police force ensures the suppression of crime and the safety for our society. Every occupation has its own work stress. What is unique is all the different stress found in one job. Aside from the heroic services police officers perform in their duty, they experience overwhelming stress in their daily duty. Police stress refers to the negative pressures related to police work (Police Stress, n.d.). In order to maintain peace and order, there must be an effective police force up and running. For that to happen, departments need to be aware and deal with the negative effects caused by police stress. Whereas, police officers must conquer their stress in order to work at their

An integral training of today’s police officers duties is the physical skill of the application of use of force. This is needed skill requirement to detain and arrest a person who has committed a crime and resisting. Police officers must be trained to use force properly when the skill is required on a subject who is resisting police officers efforts to place them under arrest. This skill has the potential for the officer to exceed the needed amount of force to place them under arrest that can lead to civil suits alleging the officer use of excessive force. Police use of force is a controversial topic with not only the community as well as leadership in the department. Concerns about excessive and unnecessary uses of force continue to require the researcher to locate what indicators police officers react to when the application of using force or threaten to use force.

Every day, law enforcement officers encounter danger while carrying out their duties. The foremost duty of law enforcement officers are to serve and protect citizens. Most law enforcement agencies do this successfully. However, many people view law enforcement officers as the enemy. People need to be better informed about law enforcement and why officers take specific actions in certain circumstances. In our society, police are in a very dangerous position when it comes to the amount of force they can use when dealing with an individual. Officers use discretion when deciding the best course of action for the situation, whether it be physical force, persuasion, or coercion. They must take the correct course of action, because if they are too lenient or to forceful, even when dealing with petty things, they can be reprimanded by superiors and the public. Should police use force? Which circumstances warrant use force and what are the limits of force they can use? These questions are often asked when police are compelled to use force.

The law enforcement officers who protect and serve the local communities have and live stressful lives. How stressful is the occupation of a law enforcement officer in their job and in their personal lives than other occupations? How hard would it be to be a spouse or loved one of a law enforcement officer? Does the public know what goes on in a law enforcement officer's job life and the life of their family? Could the average person handle the daily stress that takes place in the lives of law enforcement officers? These are several questions that individuals could ask themselves on any given day. What are the answers to these questions? I know firsthand, because I am a wife of a law

I’m interested in the law enforcement career path, and there are a lot of different paths you could take in this career choice. This career got my attention mainly because, I find solving mysteries and crimes very intriguing. The origin of this occupation came in during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, coming into America from England. “Generally speaking, the constable became responsible for law enforcement in the towns, while the sheriff took responsibility for the counties” (Stinchcomb 3). The educational requirements for this occupation at a minimum are as high school diploma or GED. Our high school provides us with a forensics class you can take your senior year, and we have an athletics department that you could join anytime