Should The Narcotics Officers Work Undercover To Collect Evidence?

The following exceptions do not require probable cause: stop and frisk, incident to arrest, consent, inventory and administrative searches. The most common exception patrol officers encounter in the field is the stop and frisk also commonly known as

Facts: This case consists of Hereford a criminal informant who gets information of narcotic laws to Officer Marsh; a federal narcotic agent with 29 years on the job. Hereford had been feeding Marsh information for close to 6 months and that information was accurate and reliable. In the early days of September 1956, Hereford told Officer Marsh that the defendant James Draper was distributing illegal narcotics throughout Denver. Several days later, Hereford told Marsh that in the days before Draper went to Chicago and set to return with several ounces of heroin. Along with the information given Hereford gave a physical description of Draper, which included his age, weight, race, and clothes that he had

As a consequence, illegally seized evidence cannot be used against the suspect, and the suspect can be released, and evidence dismissed even if the officer knows the suspect is guilty of the crime. Nevertheless, under certain

In Benters a reliable source told Detective J. Hastings there was an indoor marijuana growing operation at 527 Currin Road in Henderson, North Carolina, and Glenn Benters owned the property but was not living there. Benters at 662, 766 S.E.2d at 596 (2014). Hastings obtained a subpoena to look at the utility use for the property and discovered that it was indicative of a marijuana growing operation. Id. Hastings and Officer Joseph Ferguson traveled to Benters’ property and saw tools used for marijuana growing outside the premises. Id. After that observation, they conducted a knock and talk on the back door. Id. at 662, 766 S.E.2d at 596-597 (2014). After no answer, Ferguson walked to a building where music was playing and smelled

It is true that reasonable suspicion is not probable cause to elicit some sort of a reaction for something or for someone but

probable cause or a warrant. Before 1968 the police could search a suspect only if they had

Stop & Frisk- if the police officer has reasonable suspicion that a criminal act took place or is about take place he can search the suspect. If the police officer believes they are arm and dangerous. It is a bit less serious than probable cause. An example can be Johnny is walking down the street with a set of pliers in his

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

In reality, many arrests are carried out without a warrant. This is either because the Police are called to the scene of a crime and must act rapidly, or because they do not know who is about to be arrested before they deal with an incident and therefore could not get a warrant.

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

Using cell phone data, a phone number was found connected to the potential purchaser of the drugs. Officers contacted residents

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

Thus, this leaves this determination up to the courts to decide case by case. Probable cause quantitates specific levels of suspicion and is based on facts and prudent belief of guilt, thus allowing a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search. Probable cause is more substantial than reasonable suspicion pertaining to the justification for an investigative detention. (Devallis Rutledge, 2010).

Probable cause is a requirement which can be found in the Fourteenth Amendment that must usually be met before an arrest can be made, before being allowed to conduct a search, seize property, and to receive a warrant which is related to the alleged crime. Probable cause is considered a level of reasonable belief, probable cause must be based on facts and not an assumption. In civil court, a person can be sued if they have probable cause, and in criminal court, the defendant can be prosecuted or arrested if they also have probable cause. If the officer cannot prove probable cause, unfortunately, the evidence then becomes inadmissible, and the evidence will be thrown out.

In some cases, the authorities may arrest you even though you have not committed a crime. When a police have reasonable suspicions (probable cause) that you have violated the law, he has the right to issue a warrant against you. If you are planning to challenge the claim the officer’s claim to probable cause, you will need the assistance of Utah Criminal Defense Attorney.