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.
Officers have the rights to perform a pat-down search of the outer garments of a suspect for weapons if he or she has been legitimately stopped with reasonable suspicion and only when the officer has a reasonable fear for his or another person’s safety. Officer Smiths pat down was legal because it was necessary to ensure her safety. Officer Smith conducted a Terry frisk, which requires a reasonable suspicion the suspect is armed. Since the general description of the vehicle that killed another officer fit the description of the vehicle that killed another officer, Officer Smith pulled over; she has the right to pat-down the driver for her own safety. Did exigent circumstances exist for Officer Smith to give chase to this vehicle?
The police searched her residence but did not find the bombing suspect.However the police did find obscene materials in the house, and Miss Mapp was placed under arrest. Miss Mapp was found guilty and convicted for the illegal materials found in her residence. All evidence found at Miss Mapp’s residence was in violation of the fourth amendment (no unlawful search and seizures) because they did not have a real search warrant.The police, who possessed no warrant to search Mapp's property had acted unlawfully. Any incriminating evidence found during the search should, therefore, be thrown out of court and her conviction overturned. If the 4th Amendment did not limit the prerogatives of police on the local and State level, local law enforcement would have a mandate to search wherever, whenever, and whomever they pleased.
Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion After taking a look at all the information in the situation the stopping of the Honda Civic in where Mr. Tierney was driving, Officer Melbourne clearly had the right amount of reasonable suspicion that is required in order to perform a traffic stop by the book. The multiple violations that brought about the traffic stop include the following: • A huge crack in the cars windshield • A headlight that was not functioning properly • Expired tags • Vehicle was traveling well bellow the speed limit All of these traffic violations protected Officer Melbourne’s decision to conduct a traffic stop due to the vehicle having multiple code violations. As far as probable cause goes, Officer Melbourne only learned of the warrant that was out for Mr. Tierney’s arrest during the traffic stop that he was performing and because he had a warrant out for him, the officer had probable cause to put Mr. Tierney into states custody. However, while the officer was in the process of placing Mr. Tierney under arrest, he fled. The action of fleeing only gave more stabilization to the officer’s original decision, having enough probable cause to place the man under arrest.
Plus the car she pulled over matched the description of a vehicle that killed a fellow officer. Was the “pat-down” of the driver legal? Officers have the right to do a pat-down search of the outer clothing to see if the suspect has any weapons when stopped with reasonable suspicion and when the Officer has a reasonable fear for his or another person’s safety. “Officer Smith conducted a Terry Frisk, which requires a reasonable suspicion the subject might be armed (Anti Essay)”, since the car she pulled over fit the description of a vehicle that killed a fellow Officer, she had the right to pat-down the driver for her safety. She had to stay alert because she did not know what the subject might do, so she had to do the pat down to make sure the subject was not carrying a weapon that could harm her.
Clytaemnestra makes no gains and wins no rewards following the trial; emotionally, she may very well be in a worse state than she was before. Consider what she says to the Furies shortly before the trial: “I go stripped of honour, thanks to you / along among the dead.... / I wander in disgrace, I feel the guilt, I tell you, / withering guilt from all the outraged dead!” (235.99-104). Her suffering does not end with the dropping of the final curtain. In the end, Clytaemnestra fails to do anything of importance to herself. (It’s true that she causes the trial to unfold, but this does not benefit her at all.)
According to our text and provided videos, the officer administered the test correctly. The driver in this case was obviously driving under the influence of alcohol and should never have been in the driver’s seat. There were multiple signs of driving under the influence. Her inability to drive safely, not pulling over for a police officer, not putting her car in park before trying to get her insurance card, and the inability to complete the field sobriety test. According to the Oregon State Bar, “…the term under the
The question of who killed Eva definitively can’t be answered as all the evidence seems to be circumstantial. No one actually put a knife into Eva or forced her to drink the disinfectant, this is why there seems to be such uproar about everybody’s involvement. It is true that every one had some form of part to play in making the girl unhappy. But does making someone unhappy or changing their circumstances cause death? Even though she committed suicide?
(n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved November 9 2011 from http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Due+Process+of+Law Meyer, J. F., & Grant, D. R. (2003). The Courts Get Involved: The History of Courts and theArrangement of Modern Courts. In The Courts in Our Criminal Justice System, 1e (pp.
Government officials, politicians, and courts employees have concluded that individuals commit crimes for private alternatives and they should be punished and held responsible for their actions and conduct. Criminals also have the concept that they will never be caught thus they will continue commit crimes until proven otherwise. Large amounts of criminal who have committed offenses do not think about the consequences of their action (Brown, 2007). Today’s society has determined that the root of why an individual would choose to commit crimes is steam from the lack of education and impoverished backgrounds (Brown, 2007). To do wrong and commit crime is a choice of the criminal.