Was the “pat-down” of the driver legal? Yes, Officer Smith had a legal right to request the driver out of the vehicle for a pat-down. In the case of Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court discussed the requirement of dealing with armed and dangerous individuals. The court stated that an officer does not need probable cause to arrest in order to conduct a reasonable search for weapons as long as the suspicion is developed by factual information. In this fact pattern, Officer Smith acted on facts that a car matching the description of the automobile current pulled over of possibly being involved in a previous case involving a fellow officer murdered on the road side.
University of Phoenix Material: Robin Mravik Ethical Dilemma Worksheet Incident Review 1. What is the ethical issue or problem? Identify the issue succinctly. | The law enforcement officials did suspect that the individual was driving under the influence and thus becoming a risk to himself and everyone else around him. Before the law enforcement officer can make an arrest there has to be a clear sign of probable cause if an officer neglects to find probable cause before arresting the individual when the trial comes along, the case will be dismissed in court and the offender will walk away free.
Automobile Searches: Automobile searches are considered warrantless searches. In Carroll v. United States (1925), federal agents searched a car for illegal alcohol. Because of the Carroll case, automobile searches were considered as warrantless search. Cars are obviously mobile, in which they can be driven away along with the evidence of anything illegal. If you were to get a search warrant, it will be too late.
Analyse the impact of two pieces of crime and disorder legislation. For police officers who are already familiar with crime and disorder legislation, they need to be reminded of the impact they may have on people, communities and the public services. Choose two pieces of crime and disorder legislation you have already discussed and analyse the impact they may have on individuals (including offenders, victims and witnesses), communities and the relevant public services. The Theft Act This is taking the property of another without the intension to give it back; this can have an impact on the victim as they’re without their property whatever it may be (car, phone, wallet, game) or any other property. The person then becomes deprived and feels insecure in case of any other incidents that may occur and they find themselves to be in the same situation, there’s many different types of theft such as robbery, theft, burglary, aggravated burglary.
It is undisputed that KIA automobile complied with the safety standard for crashworthiness, including the airbags. The expert that represented the Ruiz family presented evidence in order to prove that there was a design defect in the airbag circuitry. It was stated that the airbag launch system was made with flimsy plastic connectors with insufficient locking features and metal surface area caused an open circuit that prevented the airbag to deploy. The court should grant to ensure burden is not lowered to allow liability in design-defect cases to rest on speculation about possible defects. The case Kia Motors Corp. v. Ruiz is a very interesting one, in which several legal concepts were applied and debated during litigation.
Police Encounters CJ227: Criminal Procedure Prof: Bernard Zapor 4/29/12 George Johnson Did Officer Smith have reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop of this vehicle? Yes Officer Smith had reasonable suspicion to suspect that the vehicle in front of her was the one involved in the killing of a fellow officer. One other reason is that Officer Smith believed that the older model gold Pontiac had a broken tail light that was covered with red tape. Officer Smith initial reason would be upheld by In People v. Remiro, 89 C.A. 3rd 809 (1979) if reasonable suspicion could be articulated in a court of law.
His ambition and non-stereotypical attitude helped serve justice to the rightful murderer. This goes hand in hand with the fact that there is some bad law enforcement but also good ones. Gerard plays the role of a good cop whose fate intertwines with the fate of Sheridan’s. Rogue cops can be anywhere and work for any country. I feel as if the US needs to be more careful with their way of getting such law enforcement officers.
This problem originally started when laws came into place that states a person does not have to be seen driving the vehicle, but with the probable cause law if law enforcement arrives and the person is in the vehicle, they can be charged with Dui. This law really need to be re-evaluated because there are some people that are being charged with Dui and losing their jobs and families behind this law. For example, “In Texas, in order for a police officer to make a warrantless DWI arrest, the police must establish that probable cause existed to justify your arrest. Under Texas case law, probable cause exists “when the facts and circumstances within an officer’s personal knowledge and of which he has reasonably trustworthy are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that, more likely than not,” a citizen has committed a crime. In other words, probable cause exists if the officer is able to articulate facts indicating that YOU have or are committing a certain
“A formal justice system is one in which laws are set and enforced and punishments are administered by state institutions such as courts, police, judges and prisons” (Ask.) A justice system can possibly encourage deviance and crime because there are some people who do not like to follow the law. An example of this behavior can simply be driving under the influence of alcohol. In our society everyone knows that it is against the law to operate a motor vehicle in this condition but yet there are so many people still doing it. Crime will always be committed as police are not always looking over people’s shoulders to ensure people will not break the law.
As in; Harris vs U.S. (1968). An officer used a registration found in a car that was impounded as evidence in a robbery trial. The Supreme Court deemed the evidence was admissible as it was in plain view and the officer had just reason to be there. The automobile exception put simply is, there is no need of a warrant for a vehicle if police believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime or contraband. A search of a defendant’s car produced drugs in a paper bag, and a leather pouch of cash.