Not many of us know this but, did you know that there are actually three types of confrontations with a police officer? Now you are probably thinking what those three types could be. Well, the three types are consensual encounters, a detention and probable cause to an arrest. In this paper I will be informing you about what happens in each confrontation and also what you may and may not do. Consensual encounters are the most common type of confrontations between people and police officers.
A consensual encounter is simply when an officer goes up to an individual and try’s to begin a conversation, it is just like someone starting a conversation with a stranger at a store, a market or any place. An officer doesn’t need to have probable cause
…show more content…
“The court indicated that a Terry-type stop will ordinarily be for a fairly short duration and that the detention will be no longer than necessary to effectuate the purpose of the detention” (Roberson, Cliff. (2015). Most of this stops are usually traffic stops and once the officer has turned on his red lights, the detention has started but it’s not a detention if the officer approaches a parked car and starts asking for the drivers identification. When the officer has stopped the individual and feels like that individual may be dangerous to the officer or anyone else, then the officer is allowed to do a pat down to see if the person has any weapons or anything that may be harmful. What the officer is not allowed to do when doing the pat down is that the officer can’t go inside the person’s pockets or check any bags without their permission. Unless the officer feels a bump and is 100% positive that it’s a weapon, they may go ahead and grab it. (Martin, M. (13, September). At last, it all comes down to making an arrest only if the officer has developed enough probable …show more content…
“Probable cause for arrest exists when facts and circumstances within the police officer's knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” (Probable Cause - FindLaw. (2013). If the officer arrests someone for committing a rape or a murder and that officer didn’t develop any type of probable cause then that person wouldn’t even be charged with a felony or get thrown into prison. Officers can develop probable cause through a few ways but a couple are by our senses such as sight, touch, smell and hearing and another way could be information obtained from a witness or the victim. Probable cause doesn’t just allow officers to make an arrest but also, it allows for warrants and searches to be made (Roberson, Cliff. (2015). In many cases though, most of the arrests happen without a warrant as long as there was probable cause. So if the officer didn’t develop probable cause and made an arrest, the officer will lose the case and the person arrested would be free
...rrests for all sorts of relatively minor offenses unaccompanied by violence, including, among others, night walking, unlawful game-playing, profane cursing, and negligent carriage-driving. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the court has had little to say about warrantless misdemeanor arrest authority; however in what little they have said they have focused on the circumstance that an offense was committed in the officer’s presence, to the omission of any reference to a breach of the peace limitation.
First, studies have to show how the officers apply the procedure of stop-and-frisk second, it should describe how the Fourth Amendment ties with how the police officer performs it. As further research has passed, the authors have seen some articles of steps on how stop-and-frisk being done. “Officers should conduct stops only when they are justified.” By this standard, officers should be required to file a report explaining the reason and context surrounding the stop, along with the ultimate outcome (arrest, weapons or drug confiscation, etc.). Police leaders, commanders, and managers should communicate a clear, uniform message about the purpose of the practice and lay out the expectations for police conduct. Officers should be trained to conduct stops legally and respectfully. In essence, they need to “sell the stop” to citizens by explaining the purpose behind it, how it links to the agency’s crime control efforts, and why it benefits the
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).
Consensual encounter is nothing more than a conversation between a cop and a individual in which the person is not being detained or pulled over. If the officer notices something suspicious he can search you and if he finds something illegal he can arrest you. For example, if john is at a gas station and a cop says hello, he can either say hello back or just walk away. Well John says hello which sparks a conversation between the two. The cop notices he can't stay balanced and his words are slurred so he conducts a search and finds weed on him and open beer cans on the floor of his car. The officer then arrested him and took him to jail. During court, the judge denies the claim that John was searched in a illegal stop-and-frisk. The judge said
Law enforcement officers need a reason to stop you. Remember, it cannot be just a hunch the police officer had. Their action has to be backed up with facts that led him to believe you, or someone else had committed a crime. Like the Supreme Court cases we went over, all dealt with reasonable suspicion in some way. Reasonable suspicion is the standard police officers need to stop and frisk someone. They will need probable cause, a higher standard, to search and arrest a person. Remember, officers need reasonable suspicion to stop, question, and
A Terry Stop only requires reasonable suspicion that the person was involved in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion, according to our textbook, is defined as “less than probable cause, but more than a hunch or mere suspicion” (Gardner & Anderson p. 348). An arrest, however, requires probable cause (Gardner & Anderson p. 5). Probable cause, or “reasonable grounds to believe” is the knowledge
The fourth amendment states, “The United States Constitution provides the right of the people to be secured in their persons, house, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and should not be violated, and no warrants should be issued, but upon probable cause sustained by Oath or affirmation, and specifically the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (law.cornell, n.d.). With that being said, in order for the authorities to search and seize an individual, police officers must have probable cause that an individual has committed a crime, police officer must fill out a legal documentation with further details of what it intends to search and seize to receive a warrant, and lastly, they may proceed with
One of the main powers law enforcement officers carry is the authority to make citizens involuntarily give up their rights. Most people when confronted by police get mild to moderate panic reaction, can become nervous or anxious, and do as much as possible to limit the time spent with the officer. Due to the difference in power between a citizen and a police officer, citizens often unknowingly, give up their constitutional rights when an officer acts tough or bullies them (Guidelines?1).
Police brutality is a very real problem that many Americans face today. The police carry an enormous burden each day. Police work is very stressful and involves many violent and dangerous situations. In many confrontations the police are put in a position in which they may have to use force to control the situation. There are different levels of force and the situation dictates the level use most of the time. The police have very strict rules about police use force and the manner in which they use it. In this paper I will try to explain the many different reason the police cross the line, and the many different people that this type of behavior effects. There are thousands of reports each year of assaults and ill treatment against officers who use excessive force and violate the human rights of their victims. In some cases the police have injured and even killed people through the use of excessive force and brutal treatment. The use of excessive force is a criminal act and I will try and explore the many different factors involved in these situations.
...rohibits all unreasonable search and seizures and requires a warrant.”(para. 1). The officers in this case deprived the woman of due process. The lack of a warrant being present upon entering the woman’s home was a clear violation of her constitutional rights as a home owner. “In general, officers can arrest a person (1) for any crime committed in the officer’s presence, (2) for a felony not committed in the officer’s presence if they have probable cause to believe that the person they have arrested committed the felony or, (3) under the authority of a warrant.” (POLICE, 2011, p.183).
Over the years the way law enforcement officers have been able to investigate cases has been drastically changed over the years. Investigations used to be a very prying, and vindictive matter. Now it is very delicate. Since the Miranda case, law enforcement has been very open and aware of defendants’ rights.
Was the intrusion based on a lawful objective, such as a valid arrest, detention, search, frisk, community warden guardian of mentally ill, defense of an officer or a citizen, or to prevent escape? If these answer yes then an officer may have legal ability to use the levels of force listed below to apprehend the suspect. Another list of things to consider when determining if it was a lawful use of force is; was the use of force relative to the person’s confrontation? Was there a crucial need to terminate the condition? Even though there is no duty to retreat, could the officer have used lesser force and still safely accomplish the lawful objective? These are the questions that the jury need to answer to determine if they should side with or against the officer in any court case brought to them that deals with such a controversial topic as this.
Police use discretion through weighing the costs and benefits of each situation (Wilson, 1968). The helpfulness of their choice is much more important than obeying their duty or moral. Thus, when normal force is explained it is done under the pretense of justifiably. To recap, normal force is simply the force used under police discretion that is neither legally taught nor brutal (Hunt, 1985). Normal force is justified by taking responsibility for their actions, yet denying they were wrong because of situational or abstract events. At other times officers use excuses for normal force and recognize their use of force as inappropriate. They will recall emotional or psychological states as a reason for such inappropriate actions.
Officers are able to use discretion in many situations that their morals would guide them in. They have the right to pull a person over with probable cause or a violation and they can choose whether to give them a ticket, a warning, or nothing, depending on the situation.
Police behavior is different across all communities. In fact, how police react to combat crime is affected by the management style of the various police administrators. Also, local politics will have a strong influence on how police react to crime. When police respond to a call, they will make a determination of the “cost and benefits” of their reaction. How they decide to intervene is based on the net gain to the neighborhood, suspect and the officer himself (Wilson, 1969). There have been several efforts to understand how police use discretion in their day-today operations. One of the difficulties in understanding police discretion, is when an officer makes a determination not to invoke the law, that decision is often not seen by anyone who would oversight over that officers decision, therefore that decision is usually not subject to review from any authority (Wilson, 1969). Police records are usually to incomplete to allow evaluation of non-enforcement decisions (Goldstein, 1960) Full enforcement of the law is not possible due to various reasons, a limitation of officer time, and a limitation of investigative devices. In some instances the police may choose not to enforce the law in order to allow a confidential informant to gather information on another suspect. This is an exchange relationship where both parties have the opportunity to gain so...