Officer Mcfadden Case Study

170 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Case review on terry vs ohio

Justice Brennan ruled that the protective sweep went beyond the Terry v Ohio decision because Officer McFadden exercises all the exclusionary rule that was in his guideline to do. Officer McFadden used his observation and intuition to acknowledge that there was something usually going on between the men as they cross street to street and converse. However, Officer McFadden had probable cause to believe that these individuals maybe armed and dangerous. Therefore, this officer felt that it was imperative for him to protect himself and other civilian by taken a swift measure. I felt he made the correct decision to identify himself the three gentlemen and frisk search them of any items that may be considered as a weapon. Nevertheless, in the process,

Show More
Related

  • Compare And Contrast United States V. Leon

    716 Words  | 2 Pages

    The concurring opinion was given by Justice Blackmun. He agreed with the majority opinion that the exclusionary rule is valid as long as the officer and magistrate act in ?good faith?, but he wanted to stress that it is not a rule to take lightly, that it may change with how cases such as this are handled in the future. (United States v. Leon ,

    Read More

  • Schmerber V. California Case Analysis

    1279 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Court held that because of the “special facts” the “attempt to secure evidence of blood-alcohol content in this case was an appropriate incident to petitioner’s arrest.” Under current jurisprudence, we would construe the language about “special facts” as relating to the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment – which resists categorical rules – and instead focuses on the need for the intrusion and the availability of a warrant. However, the language also justifies the search as “incident to petitioner’s arrest,” which would indicate that the test was upheld as a search incident-to-arrest. In situations where it is appropriate, that has been described as a “categorical” exception to the warrant requirement that does not require any case-by-case

    Read More

  • Against Consent Searches

    1530 Words  | 4 Pages

    The logic used by the Court in order to justify their conclusion is fraught with weak reasoning and dangerous interpretations of the Constitution. It violates the precedent set in Miranda and seems tainted with a desire to justify consent searches at any cost. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte is a decidedly pro-order case because it qualifies another excuse police can raise to search a citizen, but it is also dangerous because it shows that the Court is not the unbiased referee between liberty and democracy that it should be.

    Read More

  • Entick Vs Semayne's Case Summary

    575 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the case, Utah v. Strieff, The Salt lake police got an anonymous tip of a house with drug activity. They sent an officer to monitor the house and the officer became suspicious due to the fact that many people were going in and out of the house. Edward Strieff was saw leaving the house and the officer stopped him at a convenience store. The officer asked him for his I.D., and arrested Streff because he had a “small trafficking warrant.” When the officer arrested him, they searched Strieff and found drugs in his pocket. The state of Utah agreed that this stop was illegal because it was based on only the officer's suspicion. The state also argued that the discovery of the valid warrant got around the fourth amendment. “This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants — even if you are doing nothing wrong”, said Justice Sonia

    Read More

  • U.S. Supreme Court Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. 386 (1989)

    664 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...anded a need for subjective question of information into the definite trust of the police officers. The Supreme Court remanded the case return to the previous lower power courts authoritative instruction to decide on the case in a court of law (based) implementing on the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness test.

    Read More

  • The Stop and Frisk Program within New York City Police Department

    1527 Words  | 4 Pages

    The New York City Police Department enacted a stop and frisk program was enacted to ensure the safety of pedestrians and the safety of the entire city. Stop and frisk is a practice which police officers stop and question hundreds of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband. Those who are found to be carrying any weapons or illegal substances are placed under arrest, taken to the station for booking, and if needed given a summons to appear in front of a judge at a later date. The NYPD’s rules for stop and frisk are based on the United States Supreme Courts decision in Terry v. Ohio. The ruling in Terry v. Ohio held that search and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment, is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. If the police officer has a “reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous”, an arrest is justified (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, at 30).

    Read More

  • Stop-and-Frisk Policy

    1063 Words  | 3 Pages

    The stop-and-frisk policy could be considered a big controversy facing New York in recent times. The whole concept behind this stopping-and-frisking is the police officer, with reasonable suspicion of some crime committed or about to be committed, stops a pedestrian, questions them, then if needed frisks the person. This policy started gaining public attention back in 1968 from the Terry v. Ohio case. A police officer saw the three men casing a store and he believed they were going to rob the store; this led to him stopping and frisking them. After frisking them, he found a pistol and took the weapon from the men. The men then cried foul and claimed they were unconstitutionally targeted and frisked.

    Read More

  • Supreme Court Case: The Illinois V. Wardlow Case

    889 Words  | 2 Pages

    In March 1999, the Supreme Court upheld the murder convictions of Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing. This made the Supreme Court want to expand the police’s rights to stop and frisk a person. Nine months later, the Supreme Court argued Illinois v. Wardlow case.

    Read More

  • Trooper Bolin Case Study

    76 Words  | 1 Pages

    Trooper Bolin has great rapport with the community that he serves as well as any involvement with civilains that he encounters. He has a great workking relationship with court personnel in the jurisdictions that he works and is constantly receiving praise from the community. When engaged in a conversation, he listens to others and is respectful in his response. He has no problems communicating verbally or on paper when he is required to submit a report.

    Read More

  • The Stop, Question, And Frisk Case Study

    1215 Words  | 3 Pages

    Each year thousands of Americans are stopped by the police in order to be questioned and frisked. Everyone understands that each stop, question and frisk encounter violated the established constitutional rights. The legal issues which refer to the Stop, Question, and Frisk policy are associated with violation of certain rules that create a debate regarding the validity of the practices. The controversial Stop, Question, and Frisk practices require thorough investigation. It is illegal to aggressively stop and question American citizens who merely enter public places. In many cases, law enforcement personnel uses creative ways to stop, question and frisk people who have shown no evidence of being involved in criminal activity. For example, the New York Police Department’s “Operation Clean Halls” has been used since 1991 allowing local police officers to conduct the so-called “vertical patrols” by providing well-organized stop-and-frisk searches in hallways of public buildings (Mathias, 2012). Actually, the Stop, Question, and Frisk practiced in New York City by the City Police Department stands for the legal procedure, which requires stop and question thousands of people, as well as frisk them for weapons, drugs and other contraband. In fact, the Stop,

    Read More

  • Criticism Of The Exclusionary Rule

    1436 Words  | 3 Pages

    The exclusionary rule is one of the utmost controversial rulings in our judicial system. The exclusionary rule can be best defined as “the principle based on federal Constitutional Law that evidence illegally seized by law enforcement officers in violation of a suspect 's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be used against the suspect in a criminal prosecution.” (The Free Dictionary , 1981-2015) The exclusionary rule is not to be mistaken as being intertwined within the constitution for it is not a part of it, instead it is a remedy specially designed by the courts to reconcile violations against a defendant’s 4th amendment rights. Although it’s chief purpose maybe deeply rooted into the 4th amendment, but its protective

    Read More

  • Officer Clay Collins Case Study

    821 Words  | 2 Pages

    Officer Clay Collins is a Sheriff and Guard for the Charles County Sheriff’s department and has been with their department for over ten years. He was born and raised in Washington D.C but moved to La Plata, Maryland at the age 16. He is currently attending the University of Mary Washington and majoring in Criminal Justice. He is the husband to Heather McKeown Collins, a professor at the College of Southern Maryland and father of two Claire and Connor Collins. Clay has not graduated college yet but plans to finish in 2018 with a bachelor’s in criminal Justice. He entered Mary Washington his freshmen year undeclared

    Read More

  • Sexism In The Movie Crash

    1096 Words  | 3 Pages

    A current event that vaguely mirrors police misconduct and the racial prejudice in similar traffic stops like Cameron and Christian by Officer Ryan is the “arrest of Raymond Wiley, a 66-year-old black man”, on Friday morning when he “was stopped by a police officer and ultimately arrested” as he was taking a walk about four blocks from his house, wearing a pair of gloves to pick up any recyclables in his path as he is a scrapper and travels to automobile shops to collect spare pieces of metal for sale (Winkley). He was also “carrying a shortened cane with duct tape” for protection against unleashed dogs he’s encountered previously. According to police officials, an officer spotted Wiley and suspected he was casing nearby vehicles(Winkley). When stopped and searched, the officer found his car keys (which police officials claim could be utilized to break into vehicles) as well as $2,500 in cash. Wiley was soon arrested on suspicion of two felony charges: possession of a baton as well as burglary tools. His lawyer claims the only thing “Wiley is guilty of being black and living in Encanto”(Winkley). The original article, published by the San Diego Union Tribune appears to have no underlying biases, as it gives both sides a platform to tell their story and remains neutral throughout the

    Read More

  • Arizona V. Hicks Summary

    695 Words  | 2 Pages

    Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.

    Read More

  • Terry Vs Ohio Essay

    1311 Words  | 3 Pages

    Terry v. Ohio was in 1968 it had a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the fourth amendment prohibition on the unreasonable search and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the streets and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer had a reasonable suspicion of that person had commit a crime in which he can be belief that the person may have a weapons that can be dangerous to a police officer.

    Read More

More about Officer Mcfadden Case Study

Open Document