In chapter seven, Joel Samaha discusses a wide range of special need searches. Special-needs searches are generated by government interest in the public setting. According to Samaha, special-needs searches consist of four characteristics: 1. they’re directed at people generally, not criminal suspects and defendants specifically, 2. they can result in criminal prosecution and conviction, 3. they don’t require warrants or probable cause, 4. their reasonableness depends on balancing special government needs against invasions of individual privacy. Special-need searchers are routine searches in which ensure the safety of those in the general public. The most common of searches are inventory searches, international border searches, and airport …show more content…
Line ups and show-ups are typically used to identify a witness or a suspect. Lineups are an identification procedure, in which the witness or the victim is able to observe and pick out any possible suspects related to the crime. With a traditional lineup, a photo lineup can also be conducted. Investigators will rely on this method more frequently because there is an urgency to proceed in the case. As for a show-up, the witness of the crime is able to view the suspect alone, without other possible suspects. For example, when a suspect is apprehended, a police officer could rely on a show-up procedure and present the victim with a drive by of the detainee in an effort to identify the suspect. These identification procedures are important for the witness because they provided a comfortable setting in which can help them be as precise as possible in making an …show more content…
A tort action is a lawsuit against a police officer who violates an individual’s constitutional right. Compensation is typically required by victims because of the injuries they suffered whether mentally or physically. These proceedings or torts can be carried through state and federal level. When reviewing Anderson v. Creighton, I believe the federal officers should be held accountable for their unlawful entry. The immunity given to these officers exceeded the jurisdiction in which they conducted their unlawful
City of Pinellas Park v. Brown was a case brought to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District by the plaintiff Brown. In this case, the Brown family sued the City of Pinellas Sheriff Department on the grounds of negligence that resulted in the tragic death of two Brown sisters during a police pursuit of a fleeing traffic violator Mr. Deady. The facts in this case are straight forward, and I shall brief them as logical as possible.
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
Joshua DeShaney's mother filed a lawsuit on his behalf, claiming that because DSS had taken no action to prevent the violence affecting her son, they had violated his right to liberty without the due process gauranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment. Joshua's mother sued under “42 U.S.C. 1983, alleg...
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
...e benefits to the society should be given an upper hand as compared to enforcing the rule. To ensure ultimate gain from the exclusionary rule, the balance maintained in implementing it should be inclined towards the need for a sane and sensible society. Even with the exclusionary rule, warrantless searches cannot be eradicated completely. With the Supreme Court having the right to develop exceptions, the right to privacy will be suppressed. To ensure that maximum benefit is accrued from the rule, the magistrate should not be biased at any given time. In view of the societal values and common good, the magistrate should also not be too rigid to consider to consider other variables in question. To ensure that the police do not misuse the warrant given to them, I think it will be prudent for the warrant to be specific as to what and where evidence is to be collected.
The Constitution of the United States of America protects people’s rights because it limits the power of government against its people. Those rights guaranteed in the Constitution are better known as the Bill of Rights. Within these rights, the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures […]” (Knetzger & Muraski, 2008). According to the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be issued before a search and seizure takes place. However, consent for lawful search is one of the most common exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
One of the most important amendments in the United States Constitution and which is also part of the Bill of Rights is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects people from being searched or arrested by police officers or any law enforcement without a reason. An officer may confront you and ask to search your house but if they don’t have a search warrant, they cannot legally pursue it without good reason and permission from a judge. Now what happens when a person is being arrested? Does the police or any law enforcement need a search warrant? The answer to that question would have to be no. This is where “Search incident to arrest” comes into play. Search incident to arrest (SITA), which could also be called the Chimel rule, is a
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments
Reasonable Suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable su...
The way the police officer Martin McFadden had ignored the fourth amendment in order to catch John W. Terry & Chilton that was planning to rob a store and so the officer had stop and frisk the two suspect in which McFadden had found a concealed weapon which was a .38 caliber pistol and had two of the gun on them and so that they were charged by that ignoring the fourth amendment to find that the two were going to rob the place but also McFadden had frisked a person. Terry sentenced to 3 years, Chilton had served 13 months.
Wright, D. B. (2007). The impact of eyewitness identifications from simultaneous and sequential lineups. Memory, 15(7), 746-754. doi:10.1080/09658210701508401
The pretrial show-up is used today to make identifications of suspects. It is important that a witness gives precise details of what happened at the time when the crime took place. Show-ups usually takes place right after a crime takes place, and the apprehension of a suspect.
The findings of Steblay et al. (2011) were based on the lab reports of other eyewitness researchers, while the focus of Wells et al. (2014) was field study. It must be kept in mind that the environment of both of the studies could be a crucial factor in determining true identification. The condition of the witness in the field study can never be the same as in the laboratory experiment. Wells et al. (2014) concluded that witnesses are less likely to make identification in the sequential lineup procedure and similarly there are less possibilities of misidentifying the known-innocent fillers (the persons other than the culprits). The simultaneous lineup must also be explored further as the factor of relevant judgment is of utmost
When a successful litigation takes place the individual police officer is sued along with the police department or federal law enforcement agency are sued for the law enforcement officer’s action. The reason behind the police department getting sued as well is that the police officers actions reflect back to the department. Furthermore, the principal target of damages by plaintiffs' lawyers are aimed at the police department, due to their ability to pay larger judgments or settlements, but an officer typically is targeted as well. This can cause significant stress for a law enforcement officer as the civil process unfolds. (Berry) Examples of civil claims that might be made against police officers are cases of excessive force, police misconduct,
In the 1980’s legal tension involving police searches was a direct result of the war on drugs campaign. Officers were encouraged to stop and seize or search suspicious vehicles to put a halt on drug trafficking (Harns, 1998). But placing this aggressive approach into effect had many negative outcomes. One problem was that it put police on a thin line with the constitutional laws. To no surprise, pretty much no data estimating how often police searches fall outside constitutional laws exist. Only cases that catch the courts attention are logged into the record books. A case study held in “Middleberg” on suspect searches reports that 70 of the 86 searches didn’t result in arrest; citations weren’t presented nor were any charges filed. Just about all of the unconstitutional searches, 31 out of 34, weren’t reported to the courts, nor were they intended to be reported.