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.
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.
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.
Officer Smith noticed the suspect’s vehicle appears to have a broken taillight, which appears to be covered with colored tape. Based on the possible broken taillight, Officer Smith has reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop of the suspect’s car. A broken taillight is a trafic law violation, which usually involves a fix-it ticket. Was the “pat-down” of the driver legal? 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.
An eyewitness memory relates to a person's episodic memory for a crime or other dramatic event that he or she has witnessed. Eyewitness testimony is often relied upon in the judicial system. However, the accuracy of eyewitness memories is sometimes questioned because there are many factors that can act during encoding and retrieval of the witnessed event which may adversely affect the creation and maintenance of the memory for the event. Various scholars for instance, Feldman (2009), have found evidence to suggest that eyewitness memory is volatile. It has long been speculated that mistaken eyewitness identification plays a major role in the wrongful conviction of innocent individuals.
Safe drivers should have a privilege to be aware of those who decide to disobey the law in order to keep a distance. Driving drunk is a choice that people make, that’s why others should know about it. If a drunk driver has the courage to do it once, he will probably make the same mistake twice. The last reason I think that drunk driver’s need a specialized license is that others may be think it twice before getting behind the wheel
It would give the law enforcement personnel a bad name or rap because he or she broke the policy. The victim would not feel justice had been served if the suspect walked. The precinct where the evidence was held may look incompetent because they cannot follow procedures, which could end up with an internal investigation. The only person that would be happy would be the person that the evidence was against. The first person to handle the weapon would initial or write an identifying number on the evidence.
David’s Concerns David Tuff was a former military police officer and was a valued employee who had issues with the company’s new policy. David was concerned that the new policy caused conflict between his job duties and his license obligations. The New company policy required security guards “to order and escort intoxicated persons including those driving under the influence of alcohol off its parking lots and onto public roads” (Beauchamp et al., 2012,,p178). The new policy would potentially send drunk drivers out onto public roads were they could harm themselves or another person. This policy was the exact opposite of his license obligations that stated he was to report any crimes and felonies he saw.
They have laws in place for a reason, they are there to protect people. You are putting yourself and others at risk if you are speeding, run a red light or stop sign, don’t wear your seat belt, or are drinking and driving. If you are speeding and lose control of your vehicle you could hurt or kill yourself or someone else. If you run a red light or stop sign, there may be another car coming and you could hit them. If you are not wearing your seat belt and you get into an accident you could be thrown from the vehicle.
If such identifications are excluded, police will begin to use only reliable identification procedures. A wealth of research has been done on why mis-identifications occur and what the best practices are to minimize the possibility of mis-identifications – why shouldn’t we insist that police use these best practices and insist that only reliable testimony be admitted at trial? "An in-court identification of an accused is inadmissible if a suggestive out-of-court identification procedure created a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." In considering whether error is harmless, a case's particular facts must be considered along with various factors including: "the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's