More handpicked essays just for you.
What are the important of criminal investigation
Intro to law Reasonable suspicion
The importance of crime investigation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The legal terms of Reasonable Suspicion and Probable are important in any criminal case. Probable cause can be defined simply as that any officer must possess sufficiently trustworthy facts to believe that a crime has been committed. There are cases where an officer may need only a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct a limited search. Reasonable suspicion can be defined as any officer has sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is happing. Reasonable suspicion is usually used to justify a brief frisk in a public area or a traffic stop (Wright, R. 2013).
In any ongoing pursuit of criminals it becomes necessary to have searches and seizures to obtain evidence to put the criminals behind bars. Law Enforcement
…show more content…
is given the power to do those searches and seizures however in the United States every individual is protected against Arbitrary, unreasonable police intrusions. In the beginning of the Americas the founding fathers new how critical it was to freedom from unrestricted search warrants. (Wright, R. 2013) In England during the 1700’s they had the ability to conduct searches without justification. Colonist looked at this as government intrusion. In order to protect the citizens from arbitrary police intrusions the new government in 1791 ratified the United States Constitutions Fourth Amendment which stated the following: “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 the Oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.”(Wright, R. 2013) As a nation we entrust our Law enforcement officers with the power to conduct investigations, make arrests, perform searches and seizures of persons and their belongings, and occasionally use lethal force in the line of duty.
Those powers have to be conducted within the boundaries of the law, when officers go beyond those boundaries with good or bad reasons they ultimately jeopardize the admissibility of any evidence that they collected for the prosecution of the criminal. Where these boundaries are established they are established by the fourth amendment of the constitution and case law to be the interpreters of these boundaries. (Wright, R. 2013)
The safeguards that the Fourth Amendment provides only apply to state and federal government or those working with law enforcement are subject to the restrictions of the Fourth Amendment. Ordinary Citizens like private investigators do not receive Fourth Amendment scrutiny. (Wright, R. 2013)
When a case goes to court and it is found that the officer did not possess reasonable suspicion or probable cause it could one hurt the credibility of the officer. It can have a case thrown out and dismissed ultimately letting the criminal walk free because that officer did not conduct his duties when he violated that persons fourth amendment rights. (Wright R.
2013)
According to the Justice Kagan, in the case of Florida vs. Harris, “we considered how a court should determine if the “alert” of drug-detention during a traffic stop provides probable cause to search a vehicle” (Kagan).
A search and seizure is the phrase that describes law enforcement's gathering of evidence of a crime. Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, any search of a person or his premises this also includes vehicles. Any seizure of tangible evidence, must be reasonable. Normally, law enforcement must obtain a search warrant from a judge, specifying where and whom they may search, and what they may seize, though in emergency circumstances, they may dispense with the warrant requirement.
To summarize the Fourth Amendment, it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. A search conducted by the government exists when the area or person being searched would reasonably have an expectation of privacy. A seizure takes place when the government takes a person or property into custody based on belief a criminal law was violated. If a search or seizure is deemed unreasonable, than any evidence obtained during that search and seizure can be omitted from court under
From a trial strategy point of view, you always start with the piece(s) of evidence you believe are most damaging to the client's case and work backwards looking for an exploitable flaw in the search and seizure procedure that would make that or those item(s) inadmissible. The further back in the series of events you can argue a fatal flaw, the more likely that the evidence and any additional materials which flowed from that particular item of evidence will be excluded. This is the practical analysis of all the times we see or hear of law enforcement arguing that there was some technical item which drew their attention and suspicion and justifies their hunch that criminal activity is afoot.
This action applies to conduct by government officials such as police, firemen, or an individual hired as a private actor by the government. After the first criterion has been met, the court must determine whether a search or seizure has occurred. A search is defined as the physical or technological invasion of an area deemed by the majority of the court to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These places could be homes or a closed telephone booth, depending on the circumstances of the incident. A seizure occurs when the government takes one's personal belongings or the individual themselves.
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
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 Forth 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 has been 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 have required a probable cause combined with either a warrant or circumstances
“The Fourth Amendment wasn't written for people with nothing to hide any more than the First Amendment was written for people with nothing to say.” (Dave Krueger). The Fourth Amendment protects the people's values, including the right of privacy. The Fourth Amendment includes, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure, shall not be violated.” When the founding fathers created the Constitution they ensured the people fundamental laws that would be used to any issue portrayed in the Supreme Court. That gave the people a relief that no one is ever above the law that is created. The privacy of the people was a very big value enforced by warrants. In the case of the
A-58). It also requires “a warrant that specifically describes the place to be searched, the person involved, and suspicious things to be seized” (Goldfield et al. A- 58). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people by preventing public officials from searching homes or personal belonging without reason. It also determines whether “someone 's privacy is diminished by a governmental search or seizure” (Heritage). This amendment protects citizens from having evidence which was seized illegally “used against the one whose privacy was invaded” (Heritage). This gives police incentive to abide by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s privacy “only when a person has a legitimate expectation to privacy” (FindLaw). This means the police cannot search person’s home, briefcase, or purse. The Fourth Amendment also requires there to be certain requirements before a warrant can be issued. The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant “when the police search a home or an office, unless the search must happen immediately, and there is no opportunity to obtain a warrant” (Heritage). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people, but also the safety of the people. When there is probable cause, a government official can destroy property or subdue a suspect. The Fourth Amendment prevents government officials from harassing the public.
It means that we have the right for privacy and the authorities have no right to search an individual unless there is probable cause. Probable cause falls under the fourth amendment which is that the police officer must have a reasonable amount of suspicion to make an arrest, get a search warrant, and seize property. In addition, if the police officers believe that there is probable cause, he or she may arrest and search an individual without a warrant. Police officers may also have a reasonable suspicion for an individual who has or will commit a crime. It is defined as more as a guess but it is less than probable cause. For instance, “A police officer cannot inaugurate probable cause by saying, ‘I just had a feeling that the defendant was a burglar’.” (Berman, n.d.). Moving forward with the type of searches, the most mutual search happens to be stop and frisk. This type of search was conducted because police officers risk their lives every day and there is always crime being committed. Stop and frisk is when the police officer believes there is rational suspicion where a crime has been or will be dedicated. After the stop is made, the officer must be doubtful that the person has any type of weapon in order to perform a frisk, which is a search on the outer clothing of the person. Search of persons and premises is another type of search. This type of search is a full-blown search which does oblige a warrant. Depending on the occurrences, searches can be done before or after an arrest is performed. The way you get a search warrant is by an officer formulating an affidavit for a judge, where that certain affidavit comprises what is being searched, the area to be searched for, and the facts launching probable cause. After this has been made, the judge then approves for the search and releases the warrant to the officers to search for that specific item in
The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule has undergone a harsh and controversial development. This article not only critically analyzes the numerous alternatives and slight modifications to the exclusionary rule but the advanced by courts and commentators as well, (Schroeder, 1361). The article also puts emphasis on the alternative route of police policy making and a means to control official misconduct and violations of citizens rights. The exclusionary rule is one of the most significant defense stance of the fourth amendment. ITs establishment has created a wide spread of protection against violations of citizens rights.
In our society today, law enforcement have to follow certain rules and regulations in order to keep our society safe and to ensure that people's individual rights are not violated. However, there are some circumstances that allow law enforcement to interfere with these constitutional rights. For example, the exigent circumstance rule alters the general requirements of a warrant. This rule gives authority to law enforcement to make an imminent action based upon an emergency situation where physical harm is present or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or the destruction of evidence without a warrant. These are among the key factors that allow law enforcement to interfere, even if they do not have a warrant to do so. This rule was
Police decisions can affect life, liberty, and property, and as guardians of the interests of the public, police must maintain high standards of integrity. Police discretion concerning how to act in a given situation can often lead to ethical misconduct (Banks 29).
The success of the criminal investigation process in achieving justice can be seen through its efforts to balance the rights of the victim, offender and the community, this is evident in the areas of police powers and discretion. Police powers constitute police officers to exercise special powers such as search and seizure and the use of reasonable force. These powers are outlined in the Law Enforcement (Powers