Warrantless Arrest Research Paper

States around the country have given police the right to make warrantless arrests on in partner violence and has even limited their ability to use discretion by implementing mandatory arrests. This has made the job of the police much more difficult because they must go about handling situations like domestic violence delicately. It does not make it any easier now that the term “domestic violence” has now grown into an umbrella term including disputes between adults and children, blood relatives, and couples who sometimes are and are not married. Because the job of the police involves so many different factors and the changing social climate, it’s become quite difficult to discern whether or not having mandatory arrest laws are helpful. They

Law enforcement officers are known to “hunt for property or communications believed to be evidence of crime, and the act of taking possession of this property,” also known as conducting a search and seizure. It is a necessary exercise in the ongoing pursuit of criminals. Search and seizures are used to produce evidence for the prosecution of alleged criminals. Protecting citizens from arbitrary searches, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is our right to limit and deny any unreasonable search and seizure. More often than not, police officers tend to take advantage of their authority by the use of coercion. Although it is unlawful, most citizens do not know what police officers can and cannot do in respect of their human rights.

“Stop and Frisk” is a program put into effect by the New York Police Department that basically grants an officer authority to stop and search a “suspicious character” if they deem him/her to be as such. They don’t need a warrant, or see you commit a crime. 5They simply need to deem you “suspicious” to violate your 4th amendment rights without repercussions. Since its inception, New York City’s stop and frisk program has drawn much controversy stemming from the disproportionate rate of arrest. While the argument that the program violates an

The New York City Police Department stop-and-frisk impacts thousands of peoples lives everyday, and unfortunately most of the cases involve African American and Hispanic Males, which shows racism is still present in the world we live in today. Prior to speaking about a stop and frisk, one must have general knowledge about what it is and all of its supporting parts. A “Stop and frisk” occurs when an officer of the law temporarily detains an individual or group of people on the street to question them about the reason or reasons in which they were stopped, and possibly also frisking or searching them for the safety of the officers and the detainees as well. A stop may end with someone being arrested or given a ticket if evidence of a crime being committed comes to light. “A stop and frisk is a concise, non-invasive, police stop of a “suspect(Cornell University Law School, 2014).”

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.

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.

There are several exemptions to the fourth amendment warrant requirements. The first exemption is the Search during Lawful Arrest. A search during a lawful arrest does not require a warrant. if someone is lawfully arrested, the police may search them and any area surrounding the person that is within reach. The excuse behind this is that the search serves as a protection measurement. The Second exemption is whatever is in Plain View. If the police are a distance from where the evidence can be viewed. If an individual gives consent, and officer believes this person is authorized to give permission to search, no warrant is required for a search the area. Third exemption is Stop & Frisk. Police may stop a suspect so long as there is a reasonable

One of the most controversial of the New York Police Department procedures is the stop, question and frisk. It is a pro-active method of the NYPD because it reduce crime, even though the crime rate increase this year. However, the primary target of stop, question and frisk is in the minority communities, in which it lead as a racial

You are the newly appointed Chief of Police in a metropolitan community. Some members of your community are concerned about "excessive” use of force by the police. What strategies would you implement to ensured your community will be safe, excessive force will not be used by the police, and the constitutional rights of suspects will be honored.

During the mid-1983, two-thirds of the states have executed the warrantless arrest law. Consequently, six states across the nation have enacted on the arrest of atrocities regarding a domestic disturbance. Meanwhile, In 1997, Oregon became the first state that enacted on warrantless arrest against the immorality of a domestic disturbance. A variable of states needs to legislate on the warrantless arrest law regarding a domestic disturbance for the safety of the victims. Legislating on the warrantless arrest law would often gain the trust of victims to call law enforcements for assistance during a domestic

The laws of the United States can be hard to understand sometimes. The Fourth Amendment states that people have a right not to be searched without a reasonable warrant and that people have a right to feel secure in their homes. There are acts giving police permission to do what ever they need to to keep drunks off the streets. There are also rules and regulations, kind of like a sports game, and, just like games, there are always ways to get around these rules. Like finding it legal to randomly stop cars to give people breathalyzer tests, or entering people's homes and searching for things without a warrant. Unlike a game however, the results of going around these rules can sometimes be devastating. Police may ruin a home trying to find

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

There are a few distinct types of search and seizures but all across the United States only evidence that is seized legally can be used against you in a court of law. So, if an officer illegally searches you and finds evidence it will later be thrown out and this could lead to a dismissal of your case if there is no other evidence. Of course, the federal government has its own laws on search and seizures but each state may have some variations added to that law as well. So, it is a very good idea to study up on your own states law. But of course, there is always exceptions to these laws. There is doctrine of attenuation, this doctrine pretty much states even after an unlawful arrest if evidence was found it can still be introduced if the connection

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).

Elliott Watson was arrested for the possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute said illegal drug. Elliott Watson was stopped by Officer Timothy Johnson because of faulty mechanical problems of Elliot Watson’s vehicle, which was sputtering and stalling out, and the vehicle also fit the description of a vehicle, a sports coupe, that had earlier, was used to kidnap a three year old young girl, Wanda Jones,