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
since the officer initiated a consensual encounter and he noticed John was acting suspicious, gives the officer the right to search John. The word detention means the act of being detained by a officer without hauling the person to another location. With detentions, a police only needs reasonable suspicion to stop a individual. For example, if a person was walking down the street carrying a TV in a area known for crimes, the officer could detain him for further questioning. since the invasion of a person's rights play a small role in detentions, an officer does not have to acknowledge a person's rights. To arrest someone means to take them into custody. Unlike detentions, to arrest someone an officer needs a probable cause. When a arrest occurs, an officer has to read the individual their rights. Also, an officer will have more freedom to search a person's or their belongings during a arrest than during a detention. For example, if a officer pulls a person over and smells marijuana in the car. The officer has the right to search the vehicle due to a probable cause that the person may have a illegal drug in their car.
The issue that this case raises, is whether or not the officers had the right to search the car of a person who they just arrested, while the person is handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car?
Said by Justice David Souter “ In the majority opinion, compared the reasonableness of such a search to a more casual interaction.” He believes that the co-occupants consent is not valid because their was the refusal of an other occupant. Beside on the Fourth Amendment it states that “ a valid warrantless entry and search of a premises when the police obtain the voluntary consent of an occupant who shares, or is reasonably believed to share, common authority over the property, and no present co-tenant objects.”
On June 26, 2006, a Sheriff Officer of the State of Florida, William Wheetley and his drug detection dog, Aldo, were on patrol. Furthermore, Officer Wheetley conducted a traffic stop of the defendant Clayton Harris for expired tags on his truck. As Officer Wheetley approached the truck, he noticed that Harris was acting nervous/anxious, more than he should have, and he also noticed an open can of beer in the cup holder next to him. At that moment, Officer Wheetley knew that he was hiding something, he requested to search
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
In the case of Illinois vs. Wardlow, many factors contributed to Wardlow’s arrest. Starting with the facts of the case, on September 9, 1995 Sam Wardlow fled after seeing police vehicles covering an area in Chicago where it was known to have high drug trafficking. Two police officers spotted Wardlow, Officers Nolan and Officer Harvey, and once Officer Nolan caught up with Mr. Wardlow, Officer Nolan proceeded to conduct a pat-down search of only the outer layer of clothing, or a “Terry Stop.” Officer Nolan was well aware that in this area, there was almost always a weapon on a suspect that was involved with some type of drug transaction. After conducting the frisk, Officer Nolan squeezed the opaque colored bag that Mr. Wardlow was carrying. He noticed that the object inside of the bag felt like a hard and heavy object which he believed could potentially be a gun. After looking inside the bag, Officer Nolan found a weapon inside, a .38 caliber handgun to be exact. On the spot, Officer Nolan and Officer Harvey arrested Mr. Wardlow.
In October of 1993, R.D.S., a Nova Scotian Black youth, was arrested by a white police officer and charged with assault on a police officer in the execution of duty, assault with intent to prevent the lawful arrest of another, and resisting his own arrest. In a Nova Scotia Youth Court, R.D.S. testified that he did not touch the police officer or assault him in any way. He stated that he spoke only to his cousin, who was being arrested by Constable Steinburg, to ask the nature of his arrest and whether or not to contact his mother. R.D.S. testified that Constable Steinburg told him to either "shut up" or face arrest. The youth argued that the police officer proceeded to place both himself and his cousin in a choke hold. Constable Steinburg maintained that R.D.S. assaulted him and obstructed his cousin's arrest. He made no reference to telling the youth to shut up or to placing either youth in a choke hold. (1)
Facts: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and states that an officer to have both probable cause and a search warrant in order to search a person or their property. There are several exceptions to this requirement. One exception to this is when an officer makes an arrest; the officer can search an arrestee and the area within his immediate control without first obtaining a search warrant. This case brings forth the extent of an officer’s power in searching an arrestee’s vehicle after he has been arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car. On August 25, 1999, the police responded to an anonymous tip of drug activity at a particular residence. When they arrived on scene, Rodney Gant answered the door and identified himself. He told police that the owner of the house was not home but was coming back later that evening. Police later discovered that Rodney Gant had a warrant for his arrest for driving with a suspended license. The officers came back to the home later that evening and arrested two individuals. After both individuals were handcuffed and placed in the back of patrol cars, Gant pulled up at the house driving a vehicle. When he stepped out of his car, he was arrested for driving with a suspended license. After Gant was handcuffed and placed in the back of a third patrol car, officers proceeded to search Gant’s car. During their search they found a gun in the car and a bag of cocaine in a jacket pocket laying on the backseat of the car Gant was driving. Gant was charged with possession of the cocaine. He fought to have the evidence found in his car suppressed at trial because, he claimed, the search of his car had been unreasonable. Gant’s motion was denied and Gant was convicted...
The Court sets up their argument by listing two competing concerns which must be accommodated in defining a voluntary consent. They are the legitimate need for such searches and the requirement of assuring the absence of coercion. The Court digresses from the case at hand with the first concern. The facts of Schneckloth v. Bustamonte indicate that the suspects were stopped for the violation of having lights burned out on their automobile. Given these circumstances there is no legitimate need to search for further evidence. All the proof needed to give a ticket for...
In the day and age where online dating and meeting is becoming more common, it’s easy to alter how you are perceived. You can disclose details about yourself you believe are attractive and withhold/hide information about yourself you believe other people would reject you for. The Lenient Thesis provides that it is only a minor wrong to deceive another person into sex by misleading them about certain personal features such as natural hair color, occupation, or romantic intentions. This thesis does exclude run-of-the-mill deception like someone’s sexual history, t.v show preferences, or how funny one finds the other. In “Sex, Lies, and Consent”, Tom Dougherty seeks to argue against the lenient thesis, and instead that deceiving another person
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).
Search and seizure is a procedure used by police officers to search a person/place for any relevance to the crime with suspicion. In Bailey case, the Michigan vs. Summers had a strong relationship with the case to prove Bailey detainment was justifiable as both case scenario share a similar scenario. Both cases involved police officer obtaining a search warrant to obtain contraband evidence in a household. Both also involved an individual within the premise of the area leaving the household. This is the difference come across as George Summer, in the Summer vs Michigan, was encountered with the police as Summer descended from the steps. Summer was asked to assist them and eventual detained in the premises to prevent evidence contamtion. He was then searched after the officer found cocaine in the apartment and found drugs in Summer possession. In Bailey case he “left” before the search warrant was executed. So the search did not started and the search and seizure was questionable as Bailey did not pose any suspicion nor threat to the search at all. In the end, Bailey was unlawfully
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.
I observed the officer claim that when he questions the defendant, he felt as if he was off. The victim gives a full detail report to the officer, describing what the person looked like and everything. One of the officers had taken his picture, and sent one to the transit police, to see if it was the same person they were looking for. In the meantime, the woman officer was interrogating him about where he has been and of prescription medication that was discovered in his bag. However, the defendant lied about why his taking the medicine. I observed that the police mentioned the defendant was very yielding and being extremely corporative. The officer mentioned that he took him to the hospital for psych assessment being that he was acting odd, so they kept him because of strange behavior. I observed the officer mention that from there, they got a report that the defendant was the same person they were looking at in the pictures. It was at the hospital that they arrested the defendant.
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.