Police Officer and Police

¶ … police officers should follow to stop people for questioning.

Situation

"High-crime zones" are recognized by constitutional law: people in such areas have Fourth Amendment safeguards, distinct from those within different areas of those towns, states or cities. This step is representative of a big shift from equality of constitutional protections of every citizen. In some cases, regarding the Fourth Amendment, ranging from Adams v. Williams to the Illinois v. Wardlow case, the U.S. Supreme Court has considered neighborhood's character as one of the aspects in finding "sensible suspicion" in order to stop an individual. The neighborhood's character is not a sole validation criterion for stopping someone, but it has given two factors as the required circumstances: "high-crime zone" and 'unwarranted' running away from the police (Ferguson and Bernache, 2008). Lower level courts have also allowed high-crime zones and other otherwise innocent deeds to be considered reasonable enough suspicion to stop an individual. Therefore, in the case about a police officer and an 18-year-old in a baseball cap, it could be assumed that it was technically reasonable or legal to stop the teenager, since the area is known as a high drug-crime zone. Such determinations as legislatively selected 'red zones' or crime 'hot-spots' make some court decisions simpler. Nonetheless, the actual definition will be determined exclusively through cases, while litigants make their arguments about the particular patterns, areas, and their importance to the specific case in the court.

Situation 2

In the case of Hiibel v. the 6th Nevada Law Court District, the police got a telephone call about an assault. According to the caller, they had witnessed a woman being assaulted by a man in a silver and red GMC truck. The department sent an officer to the area to conduct an investigation, and he spotted a truck with the same description parked at the roadside. Close to the car, there were some skid marks, which made the police officer assume that the vehicle had stopped suddenly. There was a man standing next to the vehicle, and there was a woman inside. The police officer asked for identification from the man eleven times, and yet the man did not give any. He (the man) even mocked the officer; he told him to apprehend him and lock him up. Eventually, the officer apprehended the man since he had refused to comply (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada - Casebriefs). The man's arrest was based on charges of "intentionally resisting, obstructing or delaying a public police officer in the discharge or attempt to discharge a legal office duty," which violated a Nevada law. The court of trial found that the man "delayed and obstructed an officer (public officer) in his attempt to discharge his task." In a different scenario, a police officer stopped a certain teenage girl because she turned away from him as he drove by. The police officer pulled over and went towards the girl because she avoided eye contact with him. This case is different for the Hiibbel case, since the girl did nothing to make the policeman question her. The police officer only pulls over because the girl does not want to look in his direction; this is not necessarily because she is doing something illegal. With regard to the 5th Amendment, most people observe "there may be a case in which there is significant allegation that an identity furnish while being stopped may have given the office a connection in the series of evidence required to charge the individual with a different crime (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada - Casebriefs). In such a situation, the court may consider the applicability of the privilege, and the appropriate remedy if there was a Fifth Amendment violation." In the case of the teenage girl, there is no context seen, hence it was not appropriate for the officer to stop her.

Situation 3

In this case, during roll call, a Sergeant tells an officer that he has been giving out a photograph of a certain serial rapist that has been operating in the northern side of their town. While he is on patrol at the northern side, the officer sees a certain individual who matches the description given of the serial rapist. This brings the question of whether it is proper to stop the individual in reference to the picture, and whether stopping him may lead to a search and to a possible arrest. The answer to the two questions is yes, because, according to the 4th Amendment, "there will be no warrants issued, except due to possible cause (Rice)." The Constitution gives no modification of the definition of "possible cause." It is a Supreme Court task, and it has also used the standard of possible cause to some unwarranted actions. The phrase "reasonable suspicion" does not have a constitutional derivation. It was designed by the judiciary to define a measure of suspicion that is lower than possible cause. The definition of logical suspicion is based on some factual situations that may cause a rational officer to be convinced that there is an occurrence of criminal activity. Reasonable cause is distinct from possible cause (the assumption that would be made by a rational individual) needed to make an arrest, seizure, or search. If stopping and searching an individual brings about possible cause convincing the officer that the individual may have committed an offense, the officer is at liberty to formally arrest the individual and frisk them. An officer is allowed to stop individuals with the following kinds of behavior (Rice):

• Seems not to be right for the place or time.

• Fits a 'wanted' person's description.

• Behaves peculiarly, or is intoxicated, fearful, angry or emotional.

• Loitering, or searching for something.

• Fleeing or moving furtively.

• Present where a crime has occurred.

• Present where a crime has occurred (not enough on its own, or loitering in the scene).

Situation 4

This kind of stop is not acceptable in court. Today, the Supreme Court of Law overturned a certain person's conviction for unlawful possession of a gun in Roxbury, since though the police found him in possession of a firearm; they were not supposed to stop him. In addition, he did nothing wrong evading the police, since there are enough reasons for a black person in Boston to be afraid of police officers. The police officer suspected that they may have been part of a robbery, since they were in dark clothes and alone at night, in the cold. However, after he rolled his window down and shouted, "Hey, wait a bit," they started to jog away from the officer; inside the park (A hoodie and a feeling are not enough validation for a police officer to stop an African-American man in Roxbury for a criminal investigation, judicial rules). He informed other officers through his radio. Two of the officers caught up with them on the opposite end of the park. At this point, the men separated, and one of them, known as Warren, began to flee. The officers caught him at a Wakullah Street backyard, and a gun was found on the street's front yard. According to the judges, the problem was that it was not enough validation to run after someone or stop them because of a hunch and an unclear description of clothing. Solely based upon this description, the policeman only had a feeling that the man may have been part of a criminal activity. The officer concurred with that notion through his explanation that he stopped him in order "to find out who the men were, where they came from, and maybe conduct an FIO." An FIO, as noted, is a willful interaction between a person and an officer. Hence, the defendant did not qualify as a "suspect" with regard to the invasion of an entrance inquiry. The individual had a right to walk freely in the Roxbury streets that evening, unless the officers could reinforce the vague depiction of the criminals with facts that were probative of logical suspicion. This judgment is also applicable to the case where the policeman's partner intended to stop a certain man because he had a hunch.

Situation 5

There is a distinction between the arrest by an officer and the arrest by a citizen. If you decide on a citizen's arrest (What You Need to Know About Making a Citizen's Arrest):