Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … Officer Smith have reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop of this vehicle?
As per the facts of the case, Officer Smith was informed of a car of the similar make and color which was involved in the killing of a police officer. The impugned car seems at first sight to have a broken taillight which appears to be covered with color tape. Since the officer feels that the make of the car and the broken taillight may be indicative of it being involved in the death of the officer, the vehicle was pulled up. The subtle point is that the officer remembered this possibility after pulling up the vehicle. The question is if the broken taillight is a reasonable cause for suspicion. It was ruled in Arizona v. Johnson that while in the normal circumstances the police ought to have a warrant to make a search and seizure, "that procedure cannot...
Reasonable suspicion must exist before the stopping of the vehicle and search. It was held that where an officer suspects someone to appear to be in a suspicious situation the officer's conduct would not violate the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. (Citelighter, 2012) Doing so was a process of the duty and it is further observed that in the context of a vehicular stop for a minor traffic infraction, an officer can…
One of the grounds for a pat down search is where the officer has the ground that the officer had cause to believe that the suspects were acting in a manner that showed interrogation was warranted, and secondly the officer, for his own protection, had the "right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed." (Legal Information Institute, 2012a) In this case it was an investigatory "stop" and the person was actually searched by the outer clothing for weapons. Thus the officer was within her rights for her own protection and therefore taking into consideration that she suspected the driver of having been involved in a murder the pat down is not illegal. That no weapon was recovered from the person is of no consequence.
3. Did exigent circumstances exist for Officer Smith to give chase to this vehicle?
From the facts it emerges that the defendant did not possess any weapons when frisked and secondly the officer merely has a suspicion that the broken taillight indicated the car to be used in a crime. The policy with regard to the case of a chase of a vehicle and the legal effects of the chase can be viewed only on a basis of the events of individual cases. TENNESSEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) that the "intrusion on the suspect's rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement…. & #8230;an officer may not always do so by killing him." (Find Law, 2012) The use of deadly force in this case the chase
Traffic Stop Case Did Officer Smith have reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop of this vehicle? As we examine this case and more confrontational moments occur between the officer and the suspect, all events remain in question largely on the basis of this initial question. This is because ultimately, it was revealed by due process that the basic cause for the traffic stop was a suspected broken taillight which was ultimately
Reasonable Suspicion and 4th Amendment Law in U.S. v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2001) Title and Citation: U.S. v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2001) Type of Action: Review by the U.S. Supreme Court of a ruling made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that evidence should be suppressed as a result of a violation of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy and protection from unwarranted and
16). Since that time, however, the U.S. society has taken a much more liberal viewpoint, with many of its citizens decrying an invasion of privacy when being questioned by law enforcement officials. This outcry is being heeded by law enforcement officials and immigrants throughout society. Many officials are now reluctant to apprehend individuals based solely upon their looks or something as flimsy as 'reasonable suspicion'. Discovering that those they apprehend
4th Amendment's evolution and history, together with the "search and seizure" law. 4th Amendment Background People's rights of being secure in personal effects, papers, houses and persons, against unreasonable seizures and searches, may not be breached, nor shall any warrants be issued, but in case of probable cause, which is supported by affirmation or oath, and describes, particularly, the place that must be searched, or the things or individuals that should
Law Fourth Amendment Common law affirmed that evidence even that which is obtained through illegal means was admissible and was never excluded simply because it was obtained through illegal means. Common law evidence of the guilt of a defendant provided complete defense against charges that a search was violating the rights of a defendant. The fourth amendment to the United States constitution was included as part of the Bill of
Pre-Sentence Investigation Defense Attorney Jim Aiken Narcotics Detective Homicide Detective Miranda The Miranda rights were formulated in 1966 by the U.S. Supreme court after a case between Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda rights relate to the frights of an individual when that person is being taken into custody by the police and before that individual is being questioned. The individual should be read out and told about his rights according to the Fifth Amendment so that