Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The fourth amendment
Fourth amendment owrding
The fourth amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The fourth amendment
What is a probable cause hearing? A probable cause hearing is a type of preliminary hearing where the judge decides if there was probable cause for arrest (Worrall, 2017). The Fourth Amendment requires the court to verify probable cause either before or soon after the suspect has been taken into custody. However, a probable cause hearing is not always required for every arrest. Understanding probable cause is very important to in order to understand the purpose of a probable cause hearing. This paper seeks to examine the purpose and process of the probable cause hearing. Probable cause is what determines if there is sufficient reason based on known facts that a crime has been committed (Worrall, 2017). For example, in the case of Virginia v. Moore (2008), the respondent Moore was stopped by Virginia Police for driving …show more content…
If an arrest is made due to a warrant being issued then a probable cause hearing is not required because it is considered unnecessary (Worrall, 2017). The purpose of the probable cause hearing is to determine if there is probable cause to keep the individual apprehended. Consequently, the decision in landmark case Gerstein v. Pugh (420 U.S. 103 [1975]) challenged the preliminary hearing system in Florida (Worrall, 2017). Preliminary hearings in Florida at that time were not required until 30 days after the arrest had taken place. At such time the probable cause was determined during the preliminary hearing. The court held that long-lasting detentions required the judicial determination of probable cause early on and should be held without delay following the arrest (Worrall, 2017). It was not clearly stated how soon after the arrest until Riverside County v. McLaughlin (500 U.S. 44 [1991]). The court held that a hearing that takes place within 48 hours of the arrest conforms to the Fourth Amendment requirements (Worrall,
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
Reasonable doubt plays a significant role in this particular case, as it requires a standard of unsurpassable evidence in order to be able to convict the plaintiff in a criminal proceeding. This is required under the Due Process Section in the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution, allowing a safeguard and circumvention
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...
There are records of many cases that has created controversies over reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. As stated in the fourth amendment,
You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during police questioning, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state. These words have preceded every arrest since Miranda v. Arizona 1966, informing every detained person of his rights before any type of formal police questioning begins. This issue has been a hot topic for decades causing arguments over whether or not the Miranda Warnings should or should not continue to be part of police practices, and judicial procedures. In this paper, the author intends to explore many aspects of the Miranda Warnings including; definition, history, importance to society, constitutional issues, and pro’s and con’s of having the Miranda Warnings incorporated into standard police procedures.
Allows a federal judge to detain an arrestee pending trial if a defendant constitutes a danger to other persons or to the community
This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law.
As a result of the Miranda case, all persons detained by the police should be informed of four things before being questioned:
The term reasonable suspicion is a lesser standard than probable cause. It is a general belief that a crime is occurring, or has occurred. Reasonable suspicion can’t be only a hunch. It has to be based on the facts at hand and the reasoning from those facts that will lead someone else under the same circumstances to believe that a crime has occurred. The standard reasonable suspicion only allows law enforcement to temporarily detain, question, and frisk. It does not allow officers to search or seize because that will require probable cause. Probable cause is a set of facts and circumstances that would lead someone to believe that someone else has committed a specific crime. Probable cause is the next level of belief in order to arrest, search, and charge someone of a crime. Racial profiling, a controversial issue, has become a common problem in the police field. Some have said that they were stopped for being black, or Hispanic. Racial profile is a different problem; reasonable suspicion can’t be based on merely race, or ethnicity. For example, in my personal experience, I usually think anybody that is out late is suspicious. If I see someone walking by the neighborhood at night, I just obser...
The Fourth Amendment provides people with the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Courts have long recognized that the Fourth Amendment protected individuals from unjustified police intrusions into one’s person, home, car, or other possessions, but few practical protection mechanisms existed. To preserve these constitutional guarantees, the Supreme Court established standards by which police officers must abide. One such protection is the probable cause — a belief that the person committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. In order to uphold an arrest or seizure, courts require probable cause combined with either a warrant or circumstances requiring immediate action.
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
From the moment an innocent individual enters the criminal justice system they are pressured by law enforcement whose main objective is to obtain a conviction. Some police interrogation tactics have been characterized as explicit violations of the suspect’s right to due process (Campbell and Denov 2004). However, this is just the beginning. Additional forms of suffering under police custody include assaults,
In everyday terms that means, police are require to have is a reasonable belief that a person has committed or will commit a crime. For probable cause to exist, a police officer must have sufficient knowledge of facts to warrant a belief that a suspect is committing a crime. The belief must be based on factual evidence, not just on suspicion, probable cause, in order to for a court to issue an arrest warrant. A warrant is a court issued document for someone’s arrest. or to seize and search property without a warrant.
Essay Title Probable cause in United States law is the standard by police authorities have a reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal because they could’ve been involved in some way of a crime. The standard also applies to personal or property searches. Can the police search you if they have reasonable suspicion? Reasonable suspicion is a very reasonable presumption that a crime has been, is being, or might be committed in the future. It is a reasonable belief based on facts or circumstances and is informed by a police officer’s training and experience.
These are the right to a fair hearing, the rule against bias and the evidence rule. The right to a fair hearing provides that an individual should be allowed an opportunity to present their case. In ensuring that this obligation is met, the decision-making authorities must provide the individual the opportunity to prepare and present evidence in support of their case as well as an opportunity to respond to any arguments levelled against the individual by the opponent. The individual should be adequately advised of allegations and given the opportunity to respond to these allegations (Walton and Johnson,