- cert was granted ISSUE: - Did the FBI violated Katz 4th Amendment Right? (to privacy) HOLDING: - Yes REASONING: - The phone booth should be considered protected when doors are shut but the 4th amend. protects persons not places from unreasonable intrusion. In a public place, a person can have that reasonable expectation (but isn't protected because of plain view) Since the government was electronically listening and recording the conversation, it is constituted as a search & seizure. Under the 4th amend., the absence of a warrant during a search & seizure (they had probable cause as well) evidence should of been inadmissible.
This means if a person is arrested without a warrant or without probable cause and incriminating evidence is discovered after the arrest, that evidence cannot be used against the arrestee. Automobile Exception: The United States Supreme Court has stated individuals have a reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles and because vehicles are “readily mobile” it is not practical to require police to obtain a search warrant for a car. If the police have reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime has been committed, they can initiate a traffic stop. Reasonable suspicion can be nothing more than the driver’s failure to use a turn signal when changing lanes or not wearing a seat belt. If the initial traffic stop is valid, and the police develop additional
Finally, a police officer can conduct a “search incident to arrest” without a warrant. This means that during the course of a lawful arrest — one that’s based on probable cause — the police can search the arrestee and the immediate surroundings for weapons or for evidence the police fear might be destroyed.” These indicate that police officer has rights to conduct the search without the warrant in certain situation, it’s for protected the law and the safety of the community also for protects the suspects themselves. (http://www.gasawaylongandfarmer.com/information/criminal-defense-faq/Can-Police-Conduct-a-Search-Without-a-Warrant_AE12.html) There is case called Michigan V. Fisher. In this case a police
It protects the guilty rather than the victims. This rule basically states that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in a criminal trial. The basis of this rule is supposed to prevent the police and other sections of the government from illegally searching or violating our homes and our privacy. When all it really does is prevents the truth from surfacing and help criminals go free. After researching both sides of this issue, in no way am I stating that I don’t understand the determination of the opposing side to keep this rule.
In the U.S. constitution the 5th amendment protects citizens from the abuse of government employees. The 14th amendment prohibits state and local governments from depriving any person’s life, liberty, or property without taking the proper and certain steps to ensure fairness to that individual. A lot can go into answering the question: why did u use excessive force. The answers can be race of the cop and victim, situation, looks even the victims attitude towards the arresting officer etc… There are certain things you can do to fight back using your voice, the law and the courts. If you are
A person’s involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence; AND Reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary. • Both elements must be satisfied, and • It can never be necessary to arrest a person unless there are reasonable Grounds to suspect them of committing an offence. 4 State one example of when a police officer may arrest without a warrant Anyone who is about to commit an offence 5 Explain what is meant by ‘necessity criteria’. The power of arrest is only exercisable if the constable has reasonable Grounds for believing that it is necessary to arrest the person. The statutory Criteria for what may constitute necessity are set out in paragraph 2.9 and It remains an operational decision at the discretion of the constable to Decide: • Which one or more of the necessity criteria (if any) applies to the Individual; and • If any of the criteria do apply, whether to arrest, grant street bail after Arrest, report for summons or for charging by post, issue a penalty notice Or take any other action that is open to the officer.
By making this exclusionary rule, the court has to take the incentive away so police cannot take a person’s constitutional right’s away. Law enforcement cannot just bust down a person door just because police cannot even search a person car without a search warrant. There is a purpose to this rule and that is to make law enforcement enforce their own rules. The main purpose is to deter police or discourage police from doing illegal searched. 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.
Analysis and Application: Legal Rights Afforded to the Accused By Kimberly Fleetwood CJ227: Criminal Procedure January 31, 2012 The police were not required to take any procedural steps even though John had made incriminating statements. If they had made the decision to question him on what he was saying, then they would have been obligated to read him his Miranda Rights. It would seem to me though that the police would not stop him to ask questions. The statements he was making would have surely been admissible in court. The only thing the officers needed to do was to take John’s statement down in their report.
Mr. Malloy pointed out that the police should only use physical force if the situation dictates that lesser means must be considered inadequate or inappropriate. The speaker said that the first instrument of force that should be used is verbal force without involvement of physical force (oral commands). If an issue can be verbally solved, then there is no need to involve physical force. Second there is physical force without the utilization of weapons. If for example the suspect tries to escape or show physical resistance, then force can be used to control the situation.
The police do not reach the scene of the crime until after the assault is committed. The time it takes for you to call the police and wait for them to show up may cause you or family member to be seriously injured or even dead. Murder would still be committing crimes with knives and other assaulting object. Since knives and other weapons that can cause crime are not ban, it’s only right to give Belizean people the right to bear arms. Likewise, if murders would still be committing crimes with