Search And Seizure, Arrest And Interrogation

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

Since John was in custody, what are the procedural steps the police were required to take once John began to incriminate himself? The police have no obligation to stop John Doe from making any statements. “Excited Utterance” made by a defendant before being questioned are admissible as statements given under Miranda advisement. Once the police begin to question John Doe regarding the theft, then they are required to read or provide Mr. Doe with his Miranda Warnings. Miranda rights (Miranda rule, Miranda warning) n. the requirement set by the U. S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Alabama (1966) that prior to the time of arrest and any

1. What police procedures are used during arrests, and how do these procedures lead people to feel confused, fearful, and dehumanized?

The Supreme Court made it clear with its ruling that, police do have the authority to stop or detain an individual for a questioning for a short-term period without probable cause if he/she make have or about to commit a crime. This ruling is important because it gives police officer the authority to help protect him/herself as well as the community. It also puts steps in place to protect citizens from unreasonable search and seizure that is protected our Fourth Amendment right. In the case of Terry v. Ohio a police detective observed two men walking up and down a street several times and gazing into a store window. The officer observing conduct from the individuals that would lead him or her to suspect that a crime has already happened or about to happen is one of the necessities need to consider this as a valid stop. The officer identified himself as an officer of the law and began to inquire and request identification. The officer in this case followed the required guidelines for a valid stop. In return the Supreme Court ruled that this was a valid stop and frisk. According to United States Supreme Court TERRY v. OHIO, (1968) MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring. While I unreservedly agree with the Court 's ultimate holding in this case, I am constrained to fill in a few gaps, as I see them, in its opinion. I do this because what is said by this Court today

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

follow for “Stop and Frisk” happened as a result of the “Terry v. Ohio “case (162). The

Once someone reaches a level of reasonable suspicion, police officers are allowed to stop and frisk the suspects. If they are still thought to be participating in illegal activity it becomes probable cause and then the suspect will be arrested and interrogated. Due to Miranda rights people have the opportunity to speak with an attorney before being questioned and may also have one present while being questioned.

In the case Terry v. Ohio, the defendant John Terry argued that his Fourth Amendment right was violated when a police officer conducted a search on him, and found a concealed weapon. According to the officer, he had been monitoring Terry’s actions prior to the stop in fear of his safety, thus, had enough reasonable suspicion to stop and search the defendant. The Supreme Court decided to rule in favor of the state determining that the officer may stop and frisk any suspicious person when he feels that his safety or those of others are in danger. A Terry Stop is when the police are allowed to stop, question and frisk someone they believe is behaving suspiciously (Larson, 2000). I am going to argue how police officers benefit from the Terry Stops even though on many occasions they take advantage of their power and act unethical. Essentially, it is acceptable for police officers to stop and frisk any suspicious person because it enhances the community. Furthermore, from the law enforcement perspective, any officer of the law should have a mandatory right to stop and search for weapons in order to protect themselves at all times. It is obvious that society feels that they cannot trust law enforcement because minorities are more likely to be stopped and frisk. Needless to say, it can be argued that we are one step closer to chaos. I would consider that the Supreme Court clarify and specify a little more on the stop and frisk law because ambiguity. In my opinion, anytime an

Following through the process of the criminal justice system, after being stopped by police officers, many individuals remain innocent of committing any crime and walk away from the situation without further questions asked. However, at this point, silence is not the answer. Alexander notes regarding the unreasonable searches, “Hardly anyone files a complaint, because the last thing most people want to do after experiencing a frightening and intrusive encounter with the police is show up at the police station where the officer works and attract more attention to themselves” (Alexander 69). Therefore, these countless searches remain unheard of by many because the innocent are too scared to come forward and tell their stories. Perhaps if the silence is broken, word of mouth would prevent others from being unlawfully searched and arrested based on no suspicion. This is not the case though; nevertheless, it is known that “the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) trains police to conduct utterly unreasonable and discriminatory stops and searches” (Alexander 70). The use of such searches and methods to determine whom

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

We must start in the research of the NYPD Frisk Program: Noble Cause Corruption situation with the Fourth Amendment‘s which protects a person against unreasonable searches and seizures of the U.S. Constitutional 4th Amendment. Further review of the 4th Amendment law provides guidelines for the search and seizure between police and citizens in a public place.

In Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, an officer was patrolling a high crime area known for shoplifters and pick pockets. The officer witnessed Terry and a second suspect walk by a store and glance inside the window twenty-four times. The suspects uncooperative identification proceeded to a brief pat down. Terry requires specific and articulable facts in light of the officer’s training and experience built on the totality of the circumstances. The Supreme Court approved the lawful stop and frisk under the Fourth Amendment based on reasonable suspicion. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) 434 U.S. 106, an officer performed a traffic stop for an expired license plate, asked the driver to exit the vehicle

Reasonable suspicion occurs when an equitable law enforcement officer possessing a belief or intuition of the possibility of a crime being committed, stops an alleged suspect, conducts a brief investigation and “pats” them down if it is believed the detainee possess a weapon. Reasonable suspicion became relevant in 1968, during the paramount case of Terry v. Ohio. An officer observed several people, Terry included, behaving in a suspicious manner in front of a store giving the officer reasonable suspicion to confront the suspects and conduct a brief pat down, whereas it was found that Terry had in his possession a firearm. This made the officer’s reasonable suspicion plausible, ruled by the Supreme Court, (Terry v. Ohio, 1968). Thus, this lead reasonable suspicion to probable cause to the arrest of Terry and his fellow accomplices.

Howard Morton’s article discusses the problems with investigative detention and street checks. Key legal issues that are raised by Morton about the practices of street checks are that individuals do not understand that they have the right to not provide identification or answer questions. Also, that officers falsely state that individuals match the description of a suspect in a criminal investigation, they make threatening and aggressive remarks when individuals do not show identification or answer questions, and they have no authority to detain individuals to demand identification or to run it through a database without having a reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime (Morton, 2015, p.192).

Mr Boyle is being charged with 17 counts of theft contrary to Section 4 of the Theft Act and with seven counts under Section 25 of the same Act. Sgt Michael Fitzpatrick from Kilnaleck Garda Station told the court he arrested Mr Boyle by arrangement. The judge then remanded Mr Boyle on €500 cash bail with strict conditions attached to appear at Cavan District Court on May 28