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.
Include any important potential economic, social, or political pressures, and exclude inconsequential facts. That the most important fact was left out of the report. When making an arrest and writing a report it is important to have the key facts in the report right away when dealing with a case. With a DUI arrest it would be very important to indicate that the husband was driving. Now there is question by the prosecutor if the officers saw the husband driving the vehicle or if the officers honestly forgot to put that information in the report.
Emily Burleson 1/15/2013 Mr. Zimmer CJ227 Police Encounters with Suspects and Evidence Did Officer Smith have a reasonable suspicion to make the initial traffic stop? One of the more dangerous jobs an officer has is traffic stops. “The officer never knows what will happen during that stop and must stay alert so nothing can happen to the officer (Anti Essays)”. Officer Smith had reasonable suspicion to pull the car over for a broken taillight, which is a traffic violation, and can receive a “fix-it” ticket or a “correctable violations” ticket. Plus the car she pulled over matched the description of a vehicle that killed a fellow officer.
Rule 1-320 (B): Financial Arrangements With Non-Lawyers: A member shall not compensate, give or promise anything of value to any person or entity for the purpose of recommending or securing employment of the member or the member's law firm by a client, or as a reward for having made a recommendation resulting in employment of the member or the member's law firm by a client. Here, in Chapter 16, in the same Van Landel incident described supra, J. Lyman Stone, "Bruiser", slides a police report on Rudy's desk. In the report are all the details of the car accident which involved Van Landel. This is the "lead" that attorney Stone gives all his associates, to "go fishing", as he later says in his subsequent calls to Rudy at the hospital. Deck systematically uses
“For example, it makes little sense to require an officer to obtain a search warrant to seize contraband that is in plain view. Under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement, the appropriateness of every warrantless search is decided on a case-by-case basis, weighing the defendant's privacy interests against the reasonable needs of law enforcement under the circumstances” (G K. Hill, 2005). Another exception to warrant requirements as it pertains to the above article is that the video released shows there was a lack of physical harm as seen on George Zimmerman. This was important to the prosecution because Zimmerman claimed Trayvon Martin attacked him and his death was a result of self defense. In conclusion, authority’s base warrants on probable cause which are only necessary in a small percentage of cases.
Her argument had a claim, a ground, and a warrant. She supported her stand with evidence from her own observation, such as the fact that the elder people crossing the street could hardly make it across due to the lack of time allocated. Although her supporting arguments seemed reasonable, but I do not see why jaywalking should be condoned. First of all, jaywalking is a crime, and there is a good reason why it is a crime, it is a very dangerous act. The chances of getting hit by a car when jaywalking is very high, as the driver does not expect the pedestrian to cross the street where there is no traffic light.
This raises the issue of responsibility. In making an ethical judgement, it is not enough to decide what is right to do or what should have been done in a certain case. It is also necessary to decide to what extent one is or was responsible for doing what is right. It is certainly wrong for the driver of a car to crash into another car parked by the side of the road; but if the driver had lost control of his car because he suffered a heart attack or if he didn't see the parked car, he cannot be blamed for the accident, unless he could have avoided the circumstances that led to it. In the case of an individual act, assessing responsibility is relatively straightforward.
Gun Control Laws in America Firearms should not be restricted, nor should their accessories or capabilities. Placing laws that take away from our right to bear arms would only give negative effect on the safety of the general public and the amount of crimes committed. People need guns to protect themselves from the people who want to corrupt their lives by using guns, regardless of the law. Gun control laws vary from state to state. In the republic of California, some would say we have some of the worst laws and restrictions in the country.
Lastly the fourth guideline includes “against non-"victims," or non-human entities, such as governments. These are victimless not because no harm occurs, but because the recipient of the harm is not properly considered a "victim”. Victimless crimes are considered the most controversial topic in criminal law because we don’t know whether someone was harmed or not. Victimless crimes harm many different things such as the morals of society, economics, and even human principles. The four main proponents of victimless crimes include gambling,
It was the Ford team that recommended, negotiated, and agreed to make safety related decisions on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. This analysis conducted by Ford determined that the $11 fix to correct the gas tank problem would not benefit the programs profits. Not doing anything in the long-term would have cost the company less. Apparently at that time Ford felt that the life of a human being was only worth $200,725.00. So why were Ford’s actions unethical?