The totality of circumstances provides that one must look past each individual aspect of the scenario and look at the scenario as a whole. In Officer Smith’s case, with the absence of a broken taillight, one must consider that, even though the light was not broken, Officer Smith still would have had lawful reason to pull the vehicle over since it matched the description of a vehicle in a previous murder case. Even though this car was not the vehicle involved, the driver gave the Officer probable cause to believe that it could be by fleeing the scene. With the totality of circumstances considered, I believe the entire scenario would be found
1. Stop and Frisk on the Streets: Police officers have the authority to make a stop and searches of individuals in the streets. In the Terry v. Ohio (1968) the Court upheld the stop and frisk procedure when a police officer believed the person might be suspicious. The Court requires specific facts to exist in each situation in order for a stop and frisk to be permissible. A police officer is entitled for the protection of themselves and others in area to conduct a careful limited search of outer clothing.
Criminal Procedure Probable Cause Article Summary Sherita Burress CJA/364 November 21, 2011 Maxine Craig Supreme Court Is Unsuccessful In Defining “Probable Cause In Belief Of Guilt The Supreme Court decided a case on December 15, 2004, holding a law enforcement officer accountable for arresting an individuals for having merchandise in the car that he was riding in. It was stated that the merchandised belonged to neither the passenger or the driver of the vehicle that it was found in. This well known case is the case of Maryland v. Pringle, 124 S.Ct. 795 (2003), a solid decision of the Court. In the course of finding this case, the Maryland court was held accountable for not holding the police at fault for violating the
The Parties • HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - P. Zambonini for the Crown • DEFENDANT - R. Rosonick for Marvin Blackwood Procedural History • Arrest • Bail Hearing • Set Court Date • Plea Court The Facts The defendant (hereinto Mr. Blackwood) was a passenger in a motor vehicle that was stopped by the police because of a Highway Traffic Act violation. The police officer (hereinto, Officer Haynes), recognized Mr. Blackwood due to past experiences with him and, through bulletins at the police station, a known offender who could be armed or dangerous. In the course of questioning, Officer Haynes could not get a straight answer out of Mr. Blackwood. In turn, the officer requested Mr. Blackwood
Officer found that their was sufficient evidence to prove charges. QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether reasonable suspicion existed to permit officers to conduct a brief investigatory stop of the car in which the defendant was the passenger Whether the evidence is sufficient for a jury to conclude that the defendant and his fellow perpetrator planned and intended to kill the victim, and that the defendant’s conduct constituted a substantial step
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.
Officer Smith had a duty to obtain and being an officer was killed and the case was major and open for suspects, Smith made some choices and acted upon her reaction of serving and protecting. As Officer Smith spotted a vehicle with a taillight out and covered over with colored tape that gave Smith reason to pull the car over. Another reason that I believe that Officer Smith had more than sufficient suspicion to pull the Vehicle over is because it is strictly illegal to drive with only
Police Encounters CJ227: Criminal Procedure Prof: Bernard Zapor 4/29/12 George Johnson Did Officer Smith have reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop of this vehicle? Yes Officer Smith had reasonable suspicion to suspect that the vehicle in front of her was the one involved in the killing of a fellow officer. One other reason is that Officer Smith believed that the older model gold Pontiac had a broken tail light that was covered with red tape. Officer Smith initial reason would be upheld by In People v. Remiro, 89 C.A. 3rd 809 (1979) if reasonable suspicion could be articulated in a court of law.
Although section 5K and 5L offer immunity to the defendant against any liability when a person engages in a classified dangerous act. In the present case however, it was established that Mr. Mourlas was injured due to negligence on Mr. Fallas part and he was responsible for the necessary damages. Also, a person should not participate in dangerous recreational activity even if they have consumed very little alcohol just to prioritize safety for everyone involved. The defendant was negligent in taking loaded gun inside the car because it was not only a danger to himself but to the passenger and other shooters
You see a person with something illegal the plain view protect you when stopping the person. While making a car inventory report. While you are doing inventory on the car you see evidence it can be used against you. Making entry into a home after getting valid consent. You can seize anything illegal in plain view if you are legally allowed to be in that house.____________________________________________________________ 5.