Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Intro to law Reasonable suspicion
Police authority and power
Section 1 of the police and criminal act 1984
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Intro to law Reasonable suspicion
Stop and Search
This essay will critically discuss the importance of police ethics in relation to stop and search. Police ethics explained in dictionaries are a set of principles of right conduct, a theory or a system of moral values, the rules or standards governing the conduct of a persons or members of a profession. As a police officer you are holding a higher standard than the public is. You take an oath to protect and serve and part of your duties as an offices is to be above reproach on duty and off duty. All 43 police forces in UK have rules for officers to regulate what you can and cannot do as an officers. This regulations in essence is to protect the police force and the responsibilities as a police officer you must be aware of
…show more content…
The Police has many laws which gives them power stop and search, however the most frequently used are those under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 47 of Firearms Act 1968 and sections 44(1) and 44(2) of Terrorism Act 2000, section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Vehicles they might be stopped under section 163 Road Traffic Act 1988 and search under section 4 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act …show more content…
This use of power has no minimum requirement of suspicion. However section 4 PACE it authorises the police officers to search vehicles where is a reasonable ground of suspicion, that in the vehicle is carrying a person who has committed an offence or is about to commit an offence other than a road traffic offence. The vehicles can be also held or detained to search. Ones the vehicle has been stopped, section 1 PACE comes into play where the power of search on reasonable suspicion is that there are stolen of prohibited articles into vehicle or the driver has consumed alcohol or there is a reasonable suspicion the officer can conduct a breath test. The mix of laws section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and section 4 PACE it gives the police the power to stop vehicles randomly and without suspicion in order to prevent an imminent breach of the
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
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).
The issue of stop and search is considered to be an extremely controversial area. There is significant debate on the legitimacy and the accountability of police powers when conducting stop and search, which has led to concerns about the effectiveness of policing. Reiner (2000: 80) has stated that policing is ‘beyond legitimation’ as a result of consistent complaints concerning the abuse of police powers within stop and search. The cause for concern is not only raised by the public, or other agencies, but is now recognised by senior British police officers (Ainsworth, 2002: 28). The cause of concern has been raised through complaints that police target ethnic minorities through stop and search and public opinion, that stop and search is a form police harassment of black individuals (Home Office, 19897). It is said that this is a causal factor of the disproportionate in policing (Delsol and Shiner, 2006). Throughout this essay the effectiveness and legitimacy of stop and search and the negative relationship it has built with the public will be critically discussed.
Stop-and-frisk is a crime prevention action that allows a police officer to stop and frisk a pedestrian without probable cause to arrest, if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime (Stop and Frisk). It was first approved by the Supreme Court in 1968 after the case Terry v. Ohio, which was considered as a landmark decision. The purpose was to reduce the number of crimes and limited use of firearms; but after several years of implementation, it has faced so many oppositions from the people, and did not really get the positive results.
Reasonable suspicion constitutes a stop by police. According to our textbook, the Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, which is why is it important for police to justly stop a person (p. 17). The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained from improper police work, like an unwarranted stop, is not allowed in court.
Stop and frisk has encountered many opponents who think this tool is discriminatory and often targets minorities, specifically black and Hispanic people. For that reason, a federal judge ruled to use this practice more judicious after hundreds of complains against the police department. However, the community is calling back for stop and frisk since they have noticed that it is a necessary practice to keep a safe city. Thus, the problem regarding is the increase of violence in New York City due to the restriction and less use of stop and frisk.
Section 17(5) had abolished common law powers to enter premises for an arrest but said nothing for search and seizure. Power of search was under S18 and S32 and neither had a provision to abolish common law powers. Common law powers still applied in extraditable cases only. Since S18 and 19 were framed to deal with domestic abuses it was clear that Parliament wanted to restrict itself to domestic offences. There was no evidence that Parliament intended to extend PACE to include extraditable offences.
This paper is analyzing two scenarios and the motion to suppress rule. An explanation of Motion to Suppress rule will be given, for each scenario. This paper will clarify the approach that police officers will take and the method that officers use their power. Additionally, referencing court cases and supporting evidence with legal citations for the reaction stated (AIU, 2016).
These principles play a major role in modern day policing. Principle number one is extremely important and very true, the basic reason that police exists is to prevent crime and to maintain order, this is a fact that will continue to be for years to come and it will never change. This is a role that the police have been playing and will continue to play with years to come this is something that will never change because no matter how much people, technology, or times change the main focuses and goal for the police will continue to be the
PACE s 2 and Code A explains that the officer must state his name, his police station and purpose for the search, the police officers in this case have inform her the reason for this search, however, they have not told her their names and station which is considered to be unlawful. The street search must be just outer clothing which the officer have conducted successfully, but they did not take a record of the search which they must do immediately and ask her if she wants the copy of it.
Police can misuse the law by following someone around that may cause them to get nervous even if they’re not guilty of anything mess up. Which this should be wrong to do because its taking away their freedom of action. Although might just be doing their routine drive around checkup but if you follow someone to their house. That seems really unfair and more less seen as harassment in most cases but can be seen as protecting the public. For making sure the person is going around looking for houses to break in or to steal from
However, motorists are often detained and questioned when they have not displayed any signs of impaired driving. Some people point out that this practice of finding any pretext by which to detain a motorist contributes to racial profiling, but the practice is also used frequently to investigate a suspected DUI incident.
Searching – An arresting officer while searching a suspect should always look for weapons or any dangerous items. If the person is unconscious or incapacitated, the officer should look for a medical necklace or
You can not confirm an offence as summary or indictable, without having investigated or detained and arrested the person. Therefore, police deserve the right to enter a private residence without a warrant to identify what the situation really is. For example, speeding is considered a summary offence - something that necessarily wouldn’t be regarded as serious enough to persistently pursue. But, if that suspect was speeding because they are fleeing from a hit and run, you wouldn’t be able to confirm that without detaining them - which you might need the hot pursuit laws to do so. Therefore, a police officer’s rights when in hot pursuit should be adjusted so they have the power to asses a situation for what it really