More handpicked essays just for you.
Use of racial profiling by police officers
Use of racial profiling by police officers
Use of racial profiling by police officers
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Use of racial profiling by police officers
The police may apply for a search warrant due to the amount of evidence they have gathered. Between the security footage, the race, height, hair, facial hair, and tattoo of a descripted skull with crossbones on his neck is enough for the police to apply for the warrant. Stated by Cornell University Law School “An arrest warrant is issued by the competent authority upon a showing of probable cause, which means a warrant may be issued if a reasonable person would believe the information at hand is sufficient to suggest criminal activities.” (Cornell University Law School Arrest Warrant) The only reason the arrest warrant would not be approved is if the officers did not have enough probable cause. But in this case with the distinct tattoo of
The search is not considered legal, and not covered under the plain site doctrine. Myer’s fourth amendment protection against illegal search and seizure was violated by testing the bloody
Gant was arrested by Arizona police because he was driving a vehicle with a suspended license. While he was being handcuffed, officers searched his vehicle and found a gun and a bag of cocaine. During the trial, Gant petitioned to suppress the gun and cocaine because the police didn’t serve a warrant to search his vehicle, in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Prior to the Supreme Courts opinion on this case, Arizona vs. Gant, it was standard practice for police to conduct a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of a vehicle. The justifications for the search incident to arrest are to allow police to secure any weapons that the arrestee might seek to use to resist arrest or escape and preserve evidence. This case is a decision holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to a continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured. ...
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued
A search and seizure is the phrase that describes law enforcement's gathering of evidence of a crime. Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, any search of a person or his premises this also includes vehicles. Any seizure of tangible evidence, must be reasonable. Normally, law enforcement must obtain a search warrant from a judge, specifying where and whom they may search, and what they may seize, though in emergency circumstances, they may dispense with the warrant requirement.
Search and seizure in Canada has evolved into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an important asset in the legal world. The case of R v. TSE sets an important example of how unreasonable search and seizure is in Canada. An important section that relates to this case is s. 8. The main concerns with this case are whether the police abuse their powers to search and seize Yat Fung Albert Tse, the fact that when the police did enter into the wiretap they did not have a warrant and also that it is a breach of privacy without concern.
The Supreme Court has held that vehicle searches are permitted if the arrestee is unsecured and is reaching distance from the passenger compartment or if the vehicle would have evidenced related to the arrest. Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 999 (2014). Searches based on information received from a seized cell phone must be permitted by warrant. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009).
The extent of unreasonable searches and seizures go from uncalled for arrests that seem to be at random and to warrantless searches of private property. Searches on private property will only be allowed if there is reasonable David Riley was pulled over on August 22, 2009 for driving with expired tags. Riley’s license was suspended and therefore, the car had to be impounded. Upon impounding the car it was searched, and its contents cataloged. When searching the car, police found two guns and added the charge of carrying a firearm to Riley’s offence.
This paper will go through the first arrest that a new police officer did while responding to a house break in. It will show what a FTL would say to the new officer on how they did with the situation after the arrest. We will identify four issues during the arrest that related to the Miranda Laws. Then, we will try and relate these issues to a historical case. Later, we will carefully analysis the situation and see if we could resolve the issues or not. We will then go over how these issues could have been prevent from happening.
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
One of the major court decisions for the “Search Incident to Arrest” was Gant vs. Arizona. Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended driving license. When the police officers arrested him and had him hand cuffed in the back seat of the police car, they then did a search on his vehicle. The police then didn’t have a reason to think there were illegal things in his car just from driving with a suspended license. The search warrant to arrest states that a police officer may conduct a warrantless search if there are any suspensions found within the area. In Gant versus Arizona this was not the case. The police officer had no reason to search Rodney’s car just because he had a suspended drivers license. As the police officer was searching the car he found cocaine in a jacket pocket in the back seat. A previous case ruling such as New York versus Belton, they had made the bright-line rule. The bright-line says that a police can search the compartment on the passenger side of a vehicle or any containers that are within the reach or “grabbing area” of the arrestee. Later over the years there was another court casing, Thornton versus United States. During the courts ruling they had changed the Belton rule again. It now said that the police cannot pursue a warrantless search if the arrestee is secured and locked up in a police car and has no access to the inside of the vehicle. After hearing the revised rule, the court did not give up. In the final courts ruling, a police can still perform a warrantless search only if there is any reason to believe there is other crime related evidence in the vehicle. Since the time of Gants arrest the police had no suspicions to conduct a warrantless search because of a suspended driving license, Gant
The court I went to was Kew Gardens Criminal court. The section I went to was the arraignment for misdemeanors. I spent two hours observing cases, and within that two hours, I saw 16 cases. All the case took place in the same routine, with the court clerk calling the defendant to the stand. The defense attorney and prosecutor are there with them. The defense is then advised of the charges against them and they enter a plea. Of the 16 cases, 43% were African-American, 37% were Hispanic and only 12% were white. Males made up 87% of the cases and the female made up only 12%. Most of these offenders were young men and women in their 20s. The crimes they were charged with ranged from class one misdemeanors, which include burglary, DUI, possession of a weapon and possession of drugs. to class two misdemeanors, which include prostitution, physical assaults etc. Many of these offenders were sentenced to jail time or were returning back to Rikers Island for three to twelve months. Only a few were giving fines, ranging from a $1000 to $3000. Others were released from custody but were due back in court. Almost all the offenders were given a mandatory surcharge.
modern law, they have a variety of items, including intoxicating liquors, gambling implements, counterfeiters' tools, burglars' tools, smuggled goods, obscene literature, narcotics, illegal firearms and any article the possession of which is a crime or which may be used in evidence. (Encarta Online) The warrant must specify the place where the search is to be made and the property to be seized. An officer cannot get a warrant from a judge in any circumstance. (Grolier Encyclopedia) The officer may have to give a reasonable cause. As ruled in the case of Illinois v. Gates in 1983, ?to establish probable cause, one must show a probability of criminal activity; a prima facie hearing is not required.? (Illinois v. Gates) The accused has the right to fight the grounds when the war...
A search occurs when the police or other government agency intrudes into a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a seizure occurs when they affect a person’s right to have the property. “Some examples of places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy include: Places of residence, Hotel rooms, certain public places such as restrooms, some areas of jail houses, phone booths and certain areas of a car” (Rivera, ...
In Dick Wolf’s television show Law and Order: Special Victims Unit episode entitled “Home Invasions” the writer conveys the message that people cannot take the law into their own hand. In the episode the detectives from the New York police department’s special victim’s unit investigate the homicide of a gay rights activist and her husband as well as the attempted homicide of their young daughter. As the investigation progressed throughout the show it is discovered that the father was sexually assaulting his daughter. As a result of this abuse the daughter confided in her housekeeper and the housekeepers brother. The daughter conspired with the housekeeper and the housekeeper’s brother to arrange the homicide of her parents. I agree with
A complaint is a criticism or accusation expressed by someone who has experienced a particularly adverse happening, thing or fact. Any such aggrieved person may submit a complaint to the Station House Officer under whose jurisdiction the police station of the locality where the incident has taken place. A complaint may be of a public or private nature. Anyone can walk into a police station and lodge a complaint, and it is not true that only an aggrieved person can file a police complaint. In certain cases, such as those of Rape & Accidents, the victim is often not fit enough to personally come to the police station to lodge the complaint due to trauma, stress and fear. In all such cases, any individual having the information of