I think the police had the probable cause to arrest Richie - he fit the description that they were given, and he was in possession of cocaine.
I don’t think so - the police received a specific tip in terms of description, but no other information (such as a last name) that would allow a warrant to be issued. There may not have been time to issue a warrant.
I think the police should be able to stop and question him, but they would need more probable cause to search and arrest him. The only information they had was age.
12.2
If I was Officer Ramos, I would pull Lonnie over and question him, If I was Lonnie, I would probably comply with this.
She wouldn’t have probable cause - there are no facts, other than the suspicious driving, that Lonnie
…show more content…
They cannot arrest him - they should question him first, and ask if they can search the house. In this situation, they can seize any objects in plain view or anything stolen from the store. pg 149
The Supreme Court should allow this - although it would be more effective if the police just apprehended people based on reasonable suspicion, drunk driving is a fairly severe issue that probably warrants this checkpoint.
The Supreme Court should not allow this - about half of the 104 arrests were not even drug-related offenses, which is fairly unreasonable. The safety of other drivers also was not immediately threatened by drug trafficking, unlike drunk driving.
12.10
Miranda committed a crime, confessed to it without knowing that he was allowed to remain silent, and this confession was used against him. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that he would not have confessed had he known he was not required to do so.
I think his confession should have been used as evidence against him - at the time, the police probably assumed he was actively choosing to confess.
Yes, I think they should be required to tell suspects their rights. As shown by this case, they may not be aware of the full extent of these
After two hours of interrogation by the police, Miranda wrote a complete confession, admitting to the kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year-old girl ten days earlier. Alvin Moore was assigned to represent Miranda at his trial which began June 20th, in front of Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Yale McFate. It was pointed out that Miranda had not been informed of his Fifth Amendment right to have an attorney present during police questioning. Despite that he had not been informed of his rights, Miranda was convicted, forcing him to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. The charges as well as the verdict remained the same. Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in June of 1965. Criminal Defense Attorney John Flynn agreed to represent Miranda in Alvin Moore’s stead. The Supreme Court agreed that the written confession was not acceptable evidence because of Ernesto’s ignorance of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the police’s failure to inform him of them. Then state of Arizona re-tried him without the confession but with Twila Hoffman’s testimony. He was still found guilty and was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison, but this case set precedence for all other cases of this
...ing of key evidence he was not found guilty. This goes to prove that although in this case Morin was ultimately found not guilty, there are other cases where the person who is actually responsible for the crime has been released for the same reasons. In this case the actual person who murdered Christine has not been found, although had the police widened their suspect list they may have found the murderer.
reason for this murder. Alcohol and cocaine does not make a person do things that they did not
Miranda Vs Arizona was a United States Supreme Court case in 1966. The court “ruled that a criminal suspect must make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision to waive certain constitutional rights prior to questioning” (Ortmeier, 2005, 285). This ruling meant that suspects must be aware of their right to remain silent and that if they choose to speak to the police the conversation can be used against them in a court of law. If they do decide to speak under police it must not be under false promises
...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda.
DUI is the abbreviation of driving under the influence that police officers use when charging drivers that are guilty of driving under the influence. Although many DUI cases are linked to driving under the influence of alcohol there are many other substances that can impair a driver’s ability to drive safely. DUI’s account for numerous incidents from reckless driving to fatal deaths. Many of these incidents could have been prevented if sobriety checkpoints were being conducted during that time frame. Many people who drive under the influence forget that a DUI charge is a criminal charge and one is convicted with a felony under these charges. In Oregon, sobriety checkpoints are illegal under the state constitution. For this reason, year after year there has been an increase in DUI cases in which some have led to death. Sobriety checkpoints have been proven to reduce DUI incidents and accidents because people become more aware of the consequences of driving under the influence. Allowing Oregon to conduct sobriety checkpoints will make it safer for drivers because it prevents tragedies from occurring, and can reduce crime rates in the area due to police presence in the neighborhoods.
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.
I support this idea because the police officers were right near a hospital after they knew he was on cocaine, he was tased multiple times and he was bleeding yet they chose to risk all these injuries and take him to the police station. As police officers I believe they should have put the man’s health before his actions, and should have taken him into the hospital to get the medical care before being taken to the police station. However, there is another side to this report. This side is that it was the man’s fault for this event. In some ways this may true, for instance he chose to commit an illegal act and do cocaine, he also chose to break open a car door and run towards the hospital door. These following actions in some ways support how the officers handled the situation. The man, Linwood Lambert, would not cooperate therefore they believed that the only option they had was to use force. Now although this may not support why they chose to take him to the police station and not the hospital, it does support why the officers took such violent action. Overall, I believe that the man was not in the right frame of mind, due to the cocaine, and therefore could not control his actions which eventually got him killed. However, I continue to believe that the violence imposed on the man was
In 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the landmark case of Miranda v Arizona and declared that, whenever a person is arrested by the police should be informed prior to questioning the right under the Fifth Amendment (" the Fifth Amendment ") not to make statements that might incriminate himself.
Miranda came about in 1966, when a 23-year-old, name Miranda, was arrested and transported from his home to the police station for questioning in connections with a kidnapping and a rape case. Miranda was kind of poor and uneducated. At the station the police questioned him for two hours. After this two hours of questioning the police obtained a written confession that in turn was used in court against him. Miranda was undoubtedly found guilty.
For example, when Sarah Koenig says “They do not know where Hae’s car is, Jay tells the detectives he knows where it is” (Koenig). This proves that Jay knows where most of the evidence for the case is, such as the car or any specific evidence of this case. If he claimed earlier that he had nothing to do with this case, why would he state that he did not bury her, but he knew Adnan did How would Jay know where the car is if he did not have any connection with Hae A suspect should not be able to just randomly know where a piece of key evidence is, without being with Adnan or being apart of the case this proves that the court looked over a lot of evidence regarding Jay as a suspect and pinned the blame on Adnan. All of the different remarks and evidence Jay can tell the detectives prove that he can be a prime suspect in this case, and being
During the interrogation of the teens a part of the fifth amendment was violated. The right that prohibited them from self incrimination was infringed upon. They were aggressively questioned to the point that admitting
A vast majority of states in the US have laws that allow police officers to stop and frisk an individual. This procedure is allowed on the basis of reasonable suspicion, where as an arrest requires probable cause. If reasonable suspicion is not displayed then it is not a valid justifiable stop and frisk. Reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content from that required to establish probable cause, but also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable that that required to show probable cause. It must be grounded on specific facts and logical conclusions based on the officer’s experience.
They are never going to be able to reclaim their normal life, while the offenders after a few days in prison are released and put on probation. Situations such as this begs to ask a question of fairness and justice. The penalties for a DUI in Texas are insufficient and need to be changed. A person with a first offense of a DUI gets a minimum of 3 to 180 days’ jail time and up to $2,000 in fines and penalties and requires no use of an interlock ignition device. South Dakota’s DUI penalties include no minimum jail time or fine for a first or second offense, no administrative license suspension, and no ignition interlock requirement. It had the number one fatality rate from 1995-2013 and the number nine rate for 2013 alone. Nevertheless, there are still far too many people dying each year because intoxicated people get behind the wheel. Many people believe that changing the law for a DUI would not help, that drinking is uncontrolled and one of the toughest addictions to break, bars will remain open, and stores will continue to sell beer. If it was you or your loved one that died as a result of someone else 's driving drunk, would you still feel the same way? Would you still think that the laws shouldn’t change? Driving is a privilege and a responsibility. Drivers should always take this responsibility to heart before getting behind the wheel of an automobile. They should think about the pedestrians walking along the
Interrogations have guilt-presumptive, and hence the result is subject to biases due to behavioral and cognitive factors. The interviewers proceed from interviews to interrogations with only the objective of persuading the suspects to tell the truth. However, the suspects have the right to remain silent and seek counsel and are protected from harsh interrogations. The US Supreme Court requires the law enforcement officers to inform defendents their constitutional rights of remaining silent and seek an attorney if they want. The suspects should be interrogated only after they have knowingly and voluntarily waived their Miranda rights.