Introduction 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). Scenario 1 Two law enforcement officers while patrolling a known high-crime area, noticed a parked car with two individuals inside (AIU, 2016). The woman was leaning into her passenger’s window and giving the passenger, what appears to be an object (AIU, 2016), as the officers came near the vehicle the women began walking away. In this scenario …show more content…
“After frisking them for weapons, the officer looked in the area where he saw the passenger fumble with something to see if he was hiding a gun” (AIU, 2016), this is unnecessary to address the government’s argument that the alleged firearm would inevitably been discovered during and inventory search of the vehicle while being detained. “The officer said he was checking this area for this safety and to make sure that nobody would get hurt” (AIU, 2016). This is considered probable cause to insure the security and safety of law enforcement officers and civilians involved. The police officer observed a 12-pack of beer on the floorboard and checked inside for a gun. When the police officer moved the carton, he found a small baggy underneath it containing a controlled …show more content…
New Hampshire, (1971). The defense may have a motion to suppress evidence granted based on Arizona v. Hicks, (1987), in the present incident as to decide whether this “plain view” doctrine may be invoked when the police officer have less than probable cause to believe that the 12-pack of beer and the small baggy underneath it containing a controlled substance, in question is evidence of a crime or is contraband. Consequently, in Mincey v. Arizona, (1978), that a warrantless search must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justifies its intimidation, which the officer took upon his or herself to conduct a search, which violated the 14th Amendment, requiring the evidence derived from the conduct to be excluded and a motion to suppress granted. To conclude, the motion to suppress can be excluded unless granted or erred by a judge. The police officers in this case failed to accept responsibility of abuse of authority by violating the 4th Amendment right of the United States Constitution, by using probable cause with an invalid unreasonable search and seizure of the suspects. Hearsay is defined as an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in that
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
Three police officers were looking for a bombing suspect at Miss Mapp’s residence they asked her if they could search her house she refused to allow them. Miss Mapp said that they would need a search to enter her house so they left to go retrieve one. The three police officers returned three hours later with a paper that they said was a search warrant and forced their way into her house. During the search they found obscene materials that they could use to arrest her for having in her home. The items were found in the basement during an illegal search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not admissible in court.
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
At the time of trial, Mr. Wardlow tried to suppress the handgun as evidence due to the fact that he believed the gun had been seized under an unlawful stop and frisk that violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring a showing of probable cause in order to obtain a warrant before conducting such searches. “In a trial motion to suppress the gun, Wardlow claimed that in order to stop an individual, short of actually arresting the person, police first had to point to ‘specific reasonable inferences’ why the stop was necessary.”(Oyez, 2000) Recognizing that an investigati...
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Terry v. Ohio was in 1968 it had a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the fourth amendment prohibition on the unreasonable search and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the streets and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer had a reasonable suspicion of that person had commit a crime in which he can be belief that the person may have a weapons that can be dangerous to a police officer.
When officer Faultless seized the phones of Rahten and Ruhmoan both were secured then secured by officer faultless. Officer faultless unable to unlock the phones noticing Ruhmoan’s phone required his thumb print to open and forcefully used his thumb to unlock his phone. Once unlocked the officer noticed information from a text about a gun being in their car. This lead to the officer searching the car and discovering a gun. The gun was located in the passenger’s driver’s seat well out of the view of both
In the early hours of the night on June 1993, Whren and Brown were driving the Pathfinder truck in a high drug region. In the same locale, two plainclothes police officers with unmarked police car were mandated with the task to patrol the area in the District of Columbia. It’s at this juncture that the police officers observed that the Pathfinder truck in which Whren and Brown were driving had stopped at a crossing stop sign for an extraordinarily long time (Whren v the United States, 1996). Without even signaling, Whren turned right sharply and sped off on realizing that the police officers had made a U-turn towards them. Similarly, as this was in violation of the traffic rules the police officers raced after them and stopped them at the side of the road at a red light. Notwithstanding, Whren was found to hold two plastic bags of what seemed like crack cocaine in his hand when the police came to the vehicle. Whren and Brown were thus incarcerated on federal drug charges. Before the trial, counsel for the defense progressed to overturn the possession of drug evidence. They contended that the police were in violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution as the police had wrongly used the pretext of a traffic stop to investigate possible drug crimes
In 1990, there was a total of 2,245 murders in New York, but over the past nine years, this total has been less than 600 (NYCLU). However, there has not been evident proof that the stop-and-frisk procedure is the reason of the declination of the crime rate. Indeed, stop-and-frisk contributes to some downturn of crime but the number is not high enough for the citizen and police to rely on. Specifically, only 3% of 2.4 million stops result in conviction. Some 2% of those arrests – or 0.1% of all stops – led to a conviction for a violent crime. Only 2% of arrests led to a conviction for possession of a weapon (Gabatt, A., 2013). In other words, the decrease in crime due to stop-and-frisk is mostly due to the discovery of possessed of weapons. Therefore, stop-and- frisk is not an effective procedure to use because it does not represent a huge impact in people’s safety (Gabatt, A., 2013). The author has done research about how police base their initiation towards the procedure of stop-and-frisk. Researchers have found that stop-and-frisk is a crime prevention strategy that gives a police officer the permission to stop a person based on “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity and frisk based on “reasonable suspicion” that the person is armed and dangerous. This controversy is mainly because of racial profiling. “Reasonable suspicion” was described by the court as “common sense” (Avdija, A., 2013). Although, the
"Stop and Frisk." Gale Encyclopedia of American Law. Ed. Donna Batten. 3rd ed. Vol. 9. Detroit: Gale, 2010. 391-392. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 5 Nov. 2013.
Quinton, P., Bland, N., Miller, Joel (2000) Paper 130: Police stops, Decision-Making, and Practice. London: Home Office
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments
The various aspect of the plain view doctrine is that an officer must observe the item in plain view, also the officer must already have a lawful presence in an area that's protected by the 4th constitutional amendment. It's important that officers immediately recognize the item as evidence or either contraband without making further intrusion. Officers should consider making routinely Plainview observation (Jack Ryan).
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.
In this article Charlies Butts reports that a man was charged with illegal possession of drugs in April 2015.He was pulled over for driving onto a median and the officer asked to do a search with a dog. The man claimed the officer had no probable cause to search his vehicle. Additionally, he did not consent to the officer searching his car. After going to court the charges were dropped.