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.
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.
After this Harrison verbally agreed to let the investigators search his apartment. During the search a gun was found hidden under a sink. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law. The Exclusionary Rule prevents the court from using any evidence collected after an unreasonable search and seizure.
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. The Supreme Court of the United States articulated this rule in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). The Court held it was reasonable for law enforcement to search an arrestee for evidence or weapons. In order for a search incident to arrest to be lawful, the arrest itself must be lawful. 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.
Ethical Considerations for the Investigator and Prosecutor in Homicide and Rape The investigator and prosecutor play very critical roles, roles that are only fairly fulfilled if all parties are as ethical as possible. Failing to act ethically can lose a case, set a criminal free or could even mean someone innocent going to prison. While ethics in every single type of case are important we are going to examine homicide and rape. Both homicide and rape leave the public hungry for answers. We must be sure that finding those answers are done ethically from the crime scene to trial.
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
*Less-Lethal force is when an officer uses a baton, chemical sprays, and tasers to gain control of a suspect that will not comply with an officer’s commands. *Lethal Force is when an officer uses weapons such as firearms to stop a suspect from causing great bodily harm or death. In Law Enforcement officers are afforded discretion with regard to enforcing and interpreting the law. With discretionary powers officers can determine whether to arrest someone or not. Misconduct in Law Enforcement refers to inappropriate actions taken by officers in connection with their official duties.
This classification makes sense because if crime is caused by terrorists; terrorist will cause crimes. If the majority of minorities are in prisons, then people of color will end up in prison. On the opposing side of racial profiling, many minorities feel that it is a form of racial discrimination that only hurts the good image law enforcement upholds. For example, the California Highway Patrol has recently been taken to court for the misuse of racial profiling. Therefore, a compromise must be made because it would be ideological to believe that there can be a government that bans the use of racial identification.
Justice and law: Unit 1 Abstract assignment #1: Law enforcement Fall 2012 Use of force When is it justified? - Is there are any differences between the law enforcement agencies with regard to the question of when use of force is justified. Introduction Even though there are many different types of law enforcement agencies, their common overall goal is to ensure security and maintain law and order. The law enforcement agencies are also responsible for preventing crime and investigating offenses. Too ensure this obligation it is essential that the law enforcement agencies are authorized to use force – even deadly force.
Arguably, under the Terrorism Act it was made possible for the police to stop and search persons if there was belief that they were likely to be involved in some sort of terrorist activities. Prior to the implementation of this section, the police could only stop and search individuals if they had reasonable grounds for suspicion and certain criteria were met. This specific section of the act makes the issue of suspicion irrelevant with regards to carrying out searches. There is also the argument that the stop and search policy has led to racial profiling. In carrying out such searches, the act suggests that officers must take particular care not to discriminate against members of minority ethnic groups in the exercise of these powers.Consequently,