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
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.
Code, Art. 27, ß594B (1996) (repealed 2001). A warrantless arrest of an individual in a public place for a felony, or a misdemeanor committed in the officerís presence, is consistent with the Fourth Amendment if the arrest is supported by probable cause. United States v. Watson, 423 U. S. 411, 424 (1976); see Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U. S. 318, 354 (2001) stating that if an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the
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
Decision of the Court: His charge was held and he was charged for the murder of his wife. Reasoning of the Court: If the suspect could destroy the evidence then at that time and manner it is constitutional to take the sample or whatever they may need. There was no formal arrest therefore it technically could also be allowed. Under these circumstances, the police are justified in subjecting him to the very limited search and seizure to preserve the evidence they found under his fingernail. Notes * Don’t need search warrant for fingerprints, voice, handwriting * Search to take place because of probable cause, not a full search b/c not arrested.
The officer then spun Terry around while patting him down and found a weapon. Terry tried to get the weapon dropped due to illegal search and seizure but was denied due to the fact that an officer is justified in conducting a brief search of a person whom is found to be potentially dangerous. Before an officer can interrogate a person according to the sixth amendment, they must be told the right to a counsel. This comes about after the Gideon v Wainwright case in 1961. A burglary had occurred at a pool lounge.
Depending on what the judges charges are against Oliver he may get charged with the burglary on top of that he may be charged with possession of a firearm and silencers are illegal so that may be another charge he will be charged with. I would look at several cases while reviewing Olivers case. For example I would look at Mapp vs Ohio the exclusionary rule, the hand gun and the statement Oliver gave upon arrest. Also I would look at Terry vs Ohio and how the officer found the gun. Did the officer do a
United States V. Ross 456 U.S. 798 (1982) Facts: On November 27, 1978, Washington, D.C. police detectives received a tip from a reliable informant describing a man known as “Bandit” who was selling illegal narcotics that were kept in the trunk of his car. The reliable informant gave the location of the car and description of both the car and driver. The District of Columbia police officers immediately drove to the location, found the parked car, and called for a computer check on the car, which confirmed that the owner matched the description and used the alias “Bandit”. Shortly thereafter the police observed the car being driven by a man who matched the informant’s description. They stopped the car and ordered the driver out.
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
In the case of Dickerson v. The United States it states that the suspect made a voluntary statements after he was arrested. I was advised by my uncle who is a lieutenant he states, Police do not have to warn arrested individuals who make voluntary statements of their Miranda Rights, as long as they don’t coerce or give misleading advise in order to get a confession out of a suspect. He also stated that in many cases, he himself has witnesses suspects who have been caught by the police, confess their entire