Police officer need a warrant to search a person, no matter who he is. I support the first opinion, I believe the police officers are protector of people rights, but sometimes they need to invade certain person’s own right to protect the whole society. Police officer can search without warrant in three cases, “The first, called the “plain view doctrine,” refers to situations in which the police, during the course of legal police business, see something of interest in plain view, for example, if a police officer on duty on the street, and see someone sitting in the car and use illegal drug, he can seize the evidence without the warrant. Second, the police can also legally conduct a warrantless search if you give permission for them to do so. Finally, a police officer can conduct a “search incident to arrest” without a warrant.
However, the vehicle appeared to have committed a traffic violation based off of Smith’s perception. In the case of Whren v. United States, this case can back up Smiths’ reason to pull the driver over based off of probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred. Once Officer Smith began to approach the automobile, she then had reasonable suspicion of the vehicle based off of its description of an earlier crime. This gives law enforcement a reason to conduct a pat down. The pat down of the driver was very much legal based off of reasonable suspicion of the vehicle’s description.
The defendant later on denied that any liquor was visible. The defendant was arrested, and the officer seized the alcohol in the car as well as the alcohol he found in the trunk after the arrest. The defendant challenged the constitutionality of his arrest on the grounds that the officer did not have probable cause, and thus the seizure of the alcohol was not agreeable to a valid stop. Legal Issue: Whether or not the requirements of the information on which an officer may act, such as a warrantless search has probable cause? Prosecution Argument: Brinegar already had a reputation on transporting illegal alcohol, and when was pulled over he admitted to having some alcohol on him.
Confidential Informants are told to do acts or buy thing that may be illegal, but they are doing it on behalf of the government (Zalman, M. (2011)). The third part is that there has to be a connection between the collected item of evidence and an unlawful act by the officer to get the evidence. The exclusionary rule is an important doctrine supporting the ideals of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment gives the people protection under the criminal justice system from unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment also explains how law enforcement should obtain information by search warrants based on probable cause.
Criminals especially those who are going through court proceedings may not feel comfortable disclosing certain information to someone they know to be a researcher. Typically most researchers are similar to police in characteristics, white and middle class, so acting covertly will most likely increase comfortability between the researcher and criminals, allowing more valid research to be acquired. Similarly judges and police may alter their behaviours if they know the researchers true identity in a bid to disguise any flaws in their practices and unjustified law enforcing. However, Positivists would argue that data collected by covert observations aren’t at all valid, they are biased as they are based off of the observer’s interpretations. This could be especially true in the case of researching court proceedings as it is unlikely many researchers have gone through one themselves.
Stop and search: police powers A police officer has powers to stop and search you if they have ‘reasonable grounds’ to suspect you’re carrying: * Illegal drugs * A weapon * Stolen property * Something which could be used to commit a crime, eg a crowbar You can only be stopped and searched without reasonable grounds if it has been approved by a senior police officer. This can happen if it is suspected that: * Serious violence could take place * You’re carrying a weapon or have used one * You’re in a specific location or area Before you’re searched Before you’re searched the police officer must tell you: * Their name and police station * What they expect to find, e.g. drugs * The reason they want to search you, e.g. it looks like you’re hiding something * Why they are legally allowed to search you * That you can have a record of the search and if this isn’t possible at the time, how you can get a
The purpose also is if law enforcement was to take the evidence it would not be used in the court of law unless issue or that person can be set free of all charges. Basically one wrong moved can make us lose a suspect of a horrible crime if we are not careful. Law enforcement just need to be cautious so they are doing their jobs correct, and setting a person free will get them into trouble (cjlf.org, 2011). When we are identifying the exclusionary rule it is a great rule to have so police have to stop and think. Police have to think before they search because it could cost them a lot if they just do what they want.
The fact that officers know that illegally obtained (but true) evidence will quite possibly be thrown out, and therefore dangerous criminals will be freed, will encourage them to follow the proper procedures. (Woodfin, 2009) In addition, there are already several exceptions to requiring a warrant, such as “stop-and-frisk”, airport and school searches, voluntary searches, and emergency situations (Scheb, 2008) While these arguments supported the continued use of the exclusionary rule, there are also many argue against its value to our criminal justice system. One of the most
U.S. Supreme Court Search and Seizure: Arizona vs. Gant 1) The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Constitution protect against unreasonable searches and seizures of a person and a person’s property. In order to conduct a search, the police must have probable cause and generally, a search warrant is required in order for the police to search. When law enforcement conducts a search without a warrant, the search is per se unreasonable. This means there is a presumption that the search was unreasonable and the burden is on the government to demonstrate that the search was reasonable and not illegal. Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest: The rationale behind this exception is that a person who has been arrested may destroy evidence or use some type of concealed weapon against the arresting officer.
A traffic stop on the basis of race violates the fourth amendment because the officer can make the victim feel violated instead of secure. Racial profiling also violates a person’s rights because the officer demonstrates an “unreasonable seizure” on the victim when pulling him or her over. The term “unreasonable seizure” refers to when the officer proceeds to search the victim’s car for illegal weapons, drugs, and other possessions. Each individual has the right to freedom, and these illegal seizures take away that right. Racial profiling does not only exist from officers to citizens but also from officer to officer.