" (392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968).
The Court adopted the notion that Officer McFadden was protecting himself and others and found that there was probable cause to search the suspects. They "concede the officer's right to conduct a search" incident to the arrest and when, in his considered opinion, he was certain that the men were going to commit a crime. Only Justice Douglas dissented, saying that he could not find the search and seizure to be constitutional under Fourth Amendment standards, as there was not probable cause to believe a crime had been committed or was in the process of being committed or was about to be committed. He believed the police were being given powers that infringed upon personal liberties when they could detain and frisk anyone they considered "suspicious." He made the statement that "if they can 'seize' and 'search' him in their discretion, we enter…… [Read More]
Terry v Ohio (Supreme Court, 1968) -- Found that the 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure is not violated when an officer of the law stops a suspect on the street and frisks them with probably cause to arrest if there is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime, is about to commit a crime, or is in the process of committing a crime. Subsequent rulings using Terry allow for a vehicle to be constitutionally searched if there is reasonable suspicion and a 2004 ruling that certain state laws requiring suspects to identify themselves were indeed constitutional.
Siborn v New York (Supreme Court, 1968) -- 8 to 1 decision of the Warren Court stating that although states may grant officers of the law latitude in making arrests, all search and seizures must be subject to constitutional limitations. There must be verifiable probably cause -- not simply…… [Read More]
Within the domain of criminal law, Amendment IV’s safeguards with regard to searches and confiscations cover: Law enforcers’ physical capture or "seizure" of individuals, using stops or arrests;
And law enforcers’ inspections of articles and places wherein citizens lawfully expect their privacy to be respected (such as their person, homes, temporary lodgings (e.g., hotel rooms), offices, clothes, bags,cars, etc. (Search and Seizure and the Fourth Amendment – FindLaw).
Amendment IV offers safeguards to citizens in matters related to investigations and arrests, and forbids the utilization of articles seized without authority as court-room evidence (Search and Seizure and the Fourth Amendment – FindLaw). How much protection a citizen enjoys in any given instance is dependent on apprehension nature, searched location characteristics, and circumstances of search. However, for stopping or keeping any citizen in custody, law enforcement officials need to have satisfactory suspicion (in other words, impartial, soundgrounds to believe the apprehended…… [Read More]
Terry v. Ohio case, providing information on the concerned parties, case facts, previous proceedings, arguments and issues, court decision and rationale for the decision.
The People of the State of Ohio and John W. Terry
Martin Mcfadden, a law enforcement official, saw the complainant engaged in a long, serious conversation with a second man, on a quiet street corner whilst constantly pacing along the street and looking into one of the shops there, from time to time. They were subsequently approached by a third individual who conversed with them before leading them along the street. From the looks of it, the official surmised that the three men might be up to no good, and potentially planning a shop burglary. Hence, he decided upon grilling them, and considering their suspicious conduct, also decided upon swiftly frisking all three prior to interrogation (Samaha, 2012). The search generated a concealed…… [Read More]
Terry vs. Ohio
Terry Vs Ohio
The issue of what constitutes a violation of the fourth amendment forms the basis of the argument in the case of Terry vs. Ohio. In this case the petitioner Terry was stopped and frisked by the officer on the streets. A brief description of the situation is as follows. Detective McFadden was walking his beat when he observed two individuals who in his opinion were "casing" the joint with the intention of robbing the place in the daylight hours. This opinion was based on his observation and years of experience (Terry v. Ohio 2012). The suspects moved away from the initial area and were kept under surveillance by the detective. When the men joined a third person a few blocks away the officer identified himself as a police officer, requested the men's names and proceeded to pat down the outside of the men's clothing.…… [Read More]
The officer stopped and searched the three men, and recovered arms from two of them. Terry was found guilty of having covered arms and was send to prison for three years. Is the investigation and confiscation of Terry and other men against the Fourth Amendment? The Court in an 8-to-1 decision held that the investigation done by the officer was sensible under the Fourth Amendments and that the arms captured can be presented as a proof against Terry. The Court found that the officer performed based on his intuition and that a sensibly cautious man would have been reasonable in thinking that Terry was having weapons and thus pose a risk to the officer's safety while he was searching. The Court found out that the investigation done was in a restricted level and was intended to safe guard the officer's security during the search. (Terry v. Ohio: (www.oyez.org)
Fourth…… [Read More]
Supreme Court Bill of Rights Case
Terry v. Ohio introduce the Terry frisk into police procedure, allowing officers to have the right to stop and frisk or do a surface search of individuals on the street even without probable cause. All the officer would need would be to have a reasonable suspicion that the person being searched had committed, was about to commit or was in the act of committing a crime. The Supreme Court stated that the officer's suspicion had to be "specific" and able to be put into words -- that is to say, the officer could not just say he had a "hunch" that the person searched was about to violate the law: the officer would have to be able to point to a specific characteristic that made him suspect the individual in question.
However, this Supreme Court case eventually led to the allowance of the detainment…… [Read More]
" (Paul v. Davis)
The majority went on to argue that it is almost impossible to guess at any logical stopping place to the afore-prescribed theory of reasoning. Davis' interpretation of the law as set out in his briefs would seem almost necessarily to manifest itself in every legally cognizable injury which may have been inflicted by a state official - of any sort, not just a police officer -- acting under "color of law" establishing a violation of the Fifth Amendment as extended to the 50 states by the aforementioned Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
According to the majority, "We think it would come as a great surprise to those who drafted and shepherded the adoption of that Amendment to learn that it worked such a result, and a study of our decisions convinces us they do not support the construction urged by respondent."
Section 4: The Result
Consequently,…… [Read More]
On appeal, Terry argued that the conviction should be thrown out because the search that produced the evidence of the weapon in his possession was improper because it was an impermissible search of his person without a warrant or probable cause as required by the 4th Amendment (Schmalleger, 2009).
The Supreme Court decided that the type of search the police officer conducted was not prohibited by the 4th Amendment. Instead, it was a reasonable and appropriate means of ensuring the safety of the officer from concealed weapons in a tactical situation in which that concern was appropriate in light of the totality of the circumstances in which it occurred. While the 4th Amendment does prohibit more invasive searches with the intention of finding evidence of crimes, (such as for concealed contraband or of small containers), it does not prelude an external frisk now known as a Terry frisk or Terry…… [Read More]
Procedural and Substantive Law
The cases of Terry v. Ohio (1968) and State v. Perkins (2003) both deal with issues of search and seizure as explained in the fourth Amendment to the United States' Constitution. According to this Amendment, police or government officials are not allowed to perform unlawful searches and seizures. This was written in response to how the colonists lived under British rule wherein soldiers could enter the homes of any colonists at any time, and take any goods and materials they desired regardless of whether they had a cause to do so.
The major difference between the two cases seems to be that the case of Terry v. Ohio helped to expand the powers of police in their investigations, whereas State v. Perkins proved to limit the abilities of the police in terms of confiscation of weapons. During the Terry v. Ohio case, there was…… [Read More]
Counter-Terrorism and Social Media: Freedom vs. Security
The United States prides itself to being the most democratic nation of the world, with the highest respect for the human being, for its values, norms, and dreams. At the same time, before 9/11, it was also considered to be one of the safest nations of the world. The attacks on the World Trade Center towers, in particular pointed out that there are gaps in security and that even the United States represent a vulnerable target. Since then, the security measures have been seriously increased, in certain areas of expertise; security rules have been created if they did not exist. All these measures fueled a constant debate on whether the security that has been increased affects or not the liberties and freedoms of the American population.
On May 1st 2011, Osama bin Laden has been announced dead by the U.S. President, arack Obama…… [Read More]
Can text I uploaded a file a reference. BIBLIOGAPHY: Stuckey, G., oberson, C., & Wallace, H. (2006). Procedures justice system (8th Ed.). Upper Saddle iver, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Discuss police encounters individuals required level police suspicion needed justify encounters.
Discuss police encounters with individuals and the required level of police suspicion needed to justify these encounters. We will learn about consensual encounters, traffic stops, Terry stops, and arrests. You will take a look at the factors used to determine when a person is under arrest as well as the appropriateness of any searches performed during these encounter
Protection from unreasonable searches and seizures is accorded to all citizens of the United States by the Constitution. Determining precisely what constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure, however, has been an issue of continued debate amongst law enforcement throughout the history of the United States. "Until 1967, a search was an…… [Read More]
The fact that Fred was eventually allowed to leave is less important in that determination than Fred's state of mind and reasonable belief about whether or not he was still free to leave once the police informed him that he was actually a suspect in Wilma's murder (Dershowitz, 2002; Zalman, 2008).
Search and Seizure and Unlawful Arrest Issues:
The fact pattern does not make clear whether or not the police actually conducted a search of Fred's home or were merely "bluffing" to induce cooperation from Fred. Assuming that no such unwarranted search was actually being conducted, there was no impermissible search and seizure of Fred's home. Provided Fred still (reasonably) believed that he was free to terminate the interview and leave when he volunteered the confession, that evidence should not be excluded under Miranda (and related) doctrine and principles.
However, the police did seize Fred's vehicle, which was an impermissible…… [Read More]
Decisions of ehnquist & Warren
The field of constitutional law, at least in the area of criminal procedure, has been an interesting study for the past fifty years. Unlike other areas of the law, the study of criminal procedure has undergone major transformations as a result of the decisions of the last three courts, the Warren, Burger and ehnquist courts. These three courts have changed the legal landscape in the cases involving criminal procedure and, in the process; have created a great deal of controversy (Bloom, 2010).
The application of the Bill or ights to the states has been an acrimonious issue in the U.S. Supreme Court for a number of years. It all began when the Warren Court began applying the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments directly against the states, under a doctrine that became to be known as selective incorporation. The Warren Court used the selective incorporation method…… [Read More]
Discretionary Situations for a Police Chief
Discretion in the Police Department
Discretionary Situations in Criminal Arrests: "Stop" and "Frisk," acial Profiling
The expectation is that public administrators apply a balancing act in the decision making process. Focus for this study is on law enforcement administrators, especially police chiefs, on their responses to their officers' discretion to criminal arrests. The argument put forth is that police discretion is limited by managerial and information technology monitoring methods, which direct police officers to adhere to set up procedures (Chan, 2003; owe, 2007). Given that police officers usually have the opportunity to make a decision on whether to apply laws. This concept paper finds that there is a close relationship between management decisions and use of discretion. It is on this basis the research will focus on the police chief's management decisions and the use of discretion in two major scenarios.
A police department…… [Read More]
Administrative Search Exception
Administrative Search Exemption
Administrative search exception: Why it applies to airport searches
The 'administrative search exception' has often been called the TSA's attempt to circumvent the Fourth Amendment. However, "while the new TSA enhanced pat downs may violate the Fourth Amendment on the surface, what most people are not aware of is that the 9th Circuit Court of the United States ruled on the search of passengers in airports back in 1973, which effectively suspends limited aspects of the Fourth Amendment while undergoing airport security screening" (Frischling 2010). The U.S. Supreme Court case which established the exclusionary rule as a rule of law (the idea that 'fruit of the poisonous tree' evidence obtained illegally could not be used against a defendant in a court of law) was not found to be applicable in this particular category of searches. The U.S. Supreme Court had already established in 1968…… [Read More]
That on June 5, 2005, Mr. A did willingly state that the robbery was perpetrated by Mr. A on June 3, 2005, and that Mr. A is in possession of the additional items taken as proceeds of the robbery. The proceeds are located in the bedroom at Mr. a's home, located at 678 Oak Street, Collingswood.
That based upon the above, I believe there exists probable cause to believe there are presently jewelry, and evidence of their possession, in the home of Mr. a, 678 Oak Street, Collingswood, which are evidence of the fruits and instrumentalities of violations of Texas Penal Code, Chapter 26, Section 29.03(2) and, Chapter 26, Section 31.03(5).
Collingswood Police Department
SUSCRIED & SWORN to before me on this ____ day of
Superior Court Judge
Hall, Kermit L. And David Scott Clark. (2002). Oxford Companion to American Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.…… [Read More]
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 in proper working order. This denotes that probable cause may not have existed to justify the encounter between the officer and the suspect. That said, 'probable cause' is a higher standard than that required for a routine traffic stop absent the intent for a search of the suspect or vehicle. Here, reasonable suspicion is sufficient, though given the working condition of the taillight, it is not certain that this necessary existed either. According to Tennessee v Brother (2010),…… [Read More]
Stop and Frisk: The Efficacy of This Technique
Stop and frisk is one of the most controversial techniques used by the NYPD to reduce crime. Stop and frisk, as its name suggests, is when police officers stop pedestrians on the street and frisk them for drugs, weapons, and other illegal substances. On the surface, it might seem as if this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment which prohibits searches and seizures without probable cause. Almost by definition, stop and frisks are conducted without adhering to usual standards of probable cause since they are usually made relatively randomly at police discretion with only minor evidence of an infraction. Furthermore, the NYPD's specific stop and frisk program was recently declared unconstitutional but not primarily based on the Fourth Amendment. According to the district court judge the policy was "discriminatory, and showed little regard for the requirement that stops be based on…… [Read More]
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 be seized, under the 4th Amendment. Like most fields in U.S. law, the English common law forms the principal basis of the 4th Amendment. Broadly, it was created for limiting governmental powers and their capacity of enforcing legal actions upon citizens (4th Amendment - constitution -- Laws.com). Amendment IV was implemented in immediate reaction to the historical writ of assistance's abuse. This writ was a sort of general governmental search warrant employed in the American evolution's era. Amendment IV…… [Read More]
3) the method by which the search was conducted was outside of the directives that had been given by the school with regard to searching book bags and purses and using wands for students' bodies.
The fourth ranked issues were the fact that the substance in the pipe turned out to be cocaine. If the search is deemed illegal then we will have to accept a paraphernalia charge and argue against the possession of drugs charged with the argument that the pipe should not have been tested as it was gained as poisoned fruit.
When we prepare the defense we need to concentrate on the first issue which is the search itself.
Again, using the case of TLO v NJ the court found that the search of the student purse was unreasonable and a violation of the fourth amendment because the student had a cigarette in her hand, there was…… [Read More]
In order to enforce the revenue laws, English authorities made use of writs of assistance, which were general warrants authorizing the bearer to enter any house or other place to search for and seize "prohibited and uncustomed" goods, and commanding all subjects to assist in these endeavors. he writs once issued remained in force throughout the lifetime of the sovereign and six months thereafter. When, upon the death of George II in 1760, the authorities were required to obtain the issuance of new writs, James Otis, who attacked such writs on libertarian grounds and who asserted the invalidity of the authorizing statutes because they conflicted with English constitutionalism, led opposition. Otis lost and the writs were issued and utilized, but his arguments were much cited in the colonies not only on the immediate subject but also with regard to judicial review.
he language of the provision which became the Fourth…… [Read More]
In places such as Richmond, that have an already checkered past in their relationship with the public, the public perception is further damaged by the rise in crime. This is true of the police department in the rest of the country as well. The rise in crime affects the perception of the public with regard to the police department, and not the government. In actions such as racism and extralegal searches the police department and not President Bush is implicated. Many of the harmful effects of current police actions and policies are the result of government policies. The police has thus become somewhat of a scapegoat as a result of the latest government policies.
The profile of violent crimes has also changed dramatically and dangerously. Fewer police officers mean more violent criminals, which raises the crime rate.
Government policy, rising crime rates, and police actions have therefore combined into a…… [Read More]
Death penalty is generally conceived of as the supreme legal sanction, inflicted only against perpetrators of the most serious crimes. The human rights community has traditionally held a stance against the death penalty for a wide variety of reasons: critics argue that the death penalty is inhuman and degrading; that it is inappropriately applied and often politically motivated; and that rather than reducing crime, the viciousness of the punishment only serves as an inspiration to further violence.
Historically the death penalty has existed all around the world. Only since the beginning of the twentieth century has the death penalty been rejected by a growing number of people and states. International law discourages but does not prohibit it. Article 6 (paragraphs 2 and 5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political ights states that "sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the…… [Read More]
Business hetoric: Drilling in the Marcellus Shale
and Environmental Politics
Inexpensive energy sources are a requirement if the country is going to continue to thrive the way it has for more than 200 years. The United States is trying to decrease the amount of fossil fuels that it uses in everyday applications. However, the worry is not the fuels themselves, but the costs associated with the fuels. Fossil fuels are a viable resource if they are clean and extracted from the earth in ways that can be shown to be environmentally friendly. Because of these requirements, natural gas has become one of the new class of fuels that is thought of as superior to producing products from crude oil.
Natural gas is a clean energy source that can be extracted more safely than other sources of gas. Another bonus is that the product is very plentiful in the United States.…… [Read More]