Search And Seizure Pratice Research Paper

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.

2. The Supreme Court established that a warrant isn’t necessary in school due to the fact that students aren’t under the protection of police officers but instead by the school. The court decided that a search is reasonable if a) “specific facts, together with rational inference from those facts, justified the intrusion, and b) the search was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying it. Also, there can be random drug testing for students in school involved in extracurricular activities, and

The Stop and Frisk policy is practiced in New York City and it involves a police officer stopping a potential suspect then they proceed to ask the person questions and/or pat them down. 84% of these stops recorded are young men typically of African American and Hispanic heritage. However, only 6% of these stops lead to an arrest. Many of these men are only being stopped because of the color of their skin, not because the police think they are suspicious of something. These statistics are leading people to accuse the police of racial profiling, and the abuse of privacy rights which has also led to a class action lawsuit. Even though these are the people who live in high crime areas, race doesn't

The history of stop and frisk began in 1968 and ended in 2013. Stop and frisk began with the cases of Terry v. Ohio, Sibron v. New York, and New York v. Peters. The Supreme Court’s decision was made on legal grounds to stop with reasonable suspicion, question, and if necessary, frisk for weapons.

Stop and Frisk, originally originated from broken window policing which is to reduce crimes in neighborhoods, to restore order and reducing violent crimes within a persons community. The stop and frisk policy is actually part of the fourth amendment that requires a police officer to have a reasonable doubt that a crime is being, has being or is about to committed before even stopping a person or suspect for interrogations. If the police officer believes that the suspect is armed or suspicions or nervous about something related to a crime than they are allowed under the law to frisk the suspecting suspect. They do this by patting down a person from top to bottom on the outside of their clothing to feel if any weapon is being hidden upon the person.

There are many important issues regarding the U.S. Legal System that the fire service must keep in mind in order to ensure that the coming and goings of firefighters is done without disrupting this incredibly detailed system. In my opinion, while there is no limit to the complications that can result from those in the fire service disregarding laws and procedures; the most far-reaching are those resulting from search and seizure issues.

The constitution has been the back bone of the United States legal system since it was first written and signed by our founding fathers. This document has been the topic of many heat debates and has gone through many changes and interpretations throughout the years. The forth amendment of the constitution is one of the most debated amendments. This is the amendment that covers the area of search and seizure as well as privacy. The fourth amendment 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

Stop and frisk has two components that define the stop element as well as the frisk element. The stop element is defined as when a law enforcement officer briefly detains an individual, and the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur, and ask questions of the individual regarding a preliminary investigation and excludes the requirement of probable cause (Bethel, 2015). Furthermore, the frisk element may be conducted if the officer has reasonable suspicion the individual has a weapon, and is performed as a limited pat-down search of the outer clothing on the individual detained by the officer (Bethel, 2015). If a weapon is discovered, the officer is authorized to conduct a more in-depth investigation.

The last state to allow a warrantless arrest of a domestic disturbance is California. About 1996 the law modified allowing for a warrantless arrest for domestic brutality offenders. Allowing for a warrantless arrest does not assure that law enforcements will make an arrest in a domestic disturbance incident. In California, a domestic disturbance incident is a low priority for law enforcements due to it being a misdemeanor. However, considering if law enforcements made a domestic dispute a superiority perhaps it can save a majority of civilian's lives.

I feel that it is the responsibility of law enforcement to be fully aware of search and seizure laws so that a person’s civil rights are not violated. They are always changing, and it is the responsibility of the individual officer and their department to ensure that they are current with the changes. I recently finished my annual in-service and we had a half day dedicated to search and seizure when it came to DUI laws. When an officer violates a person’s civil rights in regards search and seizure, “any evidence derived from that search or seizure will almost certainly be kept out of any criminal case against the person whose rights were violated” (FindLaw, 2017).

Stop and frisk is a long established practice in policing. It happens when an officer stops a person in a public place or an automobile, asks questions about his or her identity and activities, and then frisks the person for weapons if the officer fears for his or her safety. Although now considered routine, there was a time when its constitutionality was assumed rather than based on court approval. Some states, by law, authorize officers to stop and frisk; other states and some federal courts have upheld the practice in judicial decisions even in the absence of statutory or agency authorization. Whether authorized by state law or validated through judicial decisions, however, stop and frisk has long been deemed essential and necessary part

As local bail bondsmen with over 20 years' experience, they maintain relationships with every court and detention center in the St. Charles and St. Louis area, giving them the ability to get your friend or family released as soon as possible. They serve municipal, state, federal,

Police Officials are trained to be strong and affirmative in their authority, so what happens when a citizen says no to personal belonging investigation conducted by the police? Citizens federally reserve the right to refuse due to the fourth amendment which protects individuals from unconsented searches of personal possessions. Police officers should have the right to search personal belongs if suspected of crime.

Many high schools across the country have brought much attention to the idea of giving random drug tests to students in high school. The newfound interest in student drug testing may be as a result of recent polls, which have shown an increase in drug use among high school students. Many teachers, parents, and members of school comities are for the drug testing, while most students and some parents feel that this would be a violation of students rights as Americans, which is true.

There are a number of effective interventions that proposed and implemented by schools. The most well-known program is Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.), which relies on law enforcement agencies and legislators as stakeholders for the community to educate young children. Nevertheless, recently D.A.R.E. has been criticized for its lack of preventive depth. Statistical analysis has empirically shown that the general belief is that D.A.R.E. is no more effective that standard drug prevention programs (Dusenbury & Falco, 1995). The American Academy of Pediatrics discussed the efficiency of schools drug testing its students, which has consequently shown a decline in substance use by high school students; however, there are many ethical and interpretational limitations in testing students and many schools require medical clearance to do so, complicating an already complicated process (Levy & Siquiera, 2014).