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.
Include any important potential economic, social, or political pressures, and exclude inconsequential facts. | Law enforcement officials have the responsibility to determine if the offense is grave enough that it requires apprehension of the offender based on probable cause. In this case however, the individual was driving under the influence so he is risking the lives of those around him and the he is also putting his own life in danger. He is also breaking the law, morally and ethically, the individual should immediately go to jail but there must be a trial first. The officers must have enough probable cause or sufficient evidence to validate the arrest of the offender.
This is an EXAMPLE of what i am looking for: What requires investigation? What requires legal research? What sources of law / legal authority? Stealer says that the taking occurs only if the defendant has left the premises. We would want to try and obtain security video to clearly show the stop inside the store.
Yes, from my observation of the marijuana plants you would need a search warrant to enter and search the house and the resident, but in saying that you would need probable cause, which refers to the requirement in criminal law that police have adequate reason to arrest someone, conduct a search or seize property relating to an alleged crime to enter the house, so in this case the citizens are breaking the law due to growing illegal drugs. If you enter the residence and seize additional evidence inside and that search and seizure is later deemed illegal, would the additional evidence be admissible in court? Why or why not? In my opinion any additional evidence inside the premises would not be admissible in court, this is because as I stated above that any evidence that was collected at the premises and either the search warrant was not issued or was deemed to be
Understanding Search and Seizure Ann Pierce AIU Online Abstract What are the guidelines for search and seizure? When is it ok to not have a warrant to search? This paper will look at what is required to get a warrant, when one is needed or not needed, and some of the types of searches performed by police. Understanding Search and Seizure The 4th amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The fourth amendment is about privacy.
MIDTERM 1 Running Head: MIDTERM Midterm Project Search and Seizure Linda Branstrom Kaplan University CJ 299: Associates Capstone in Criminal Justice Professor Terry Campbell April 22, 2012 MIDTERM 2 Abstract It is firmly ingrained in our system of law that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject to only a few specifically established exceptions. The courts have outlined a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement including but not limited to, consent searches, searches of vehicles and, inventory searches. One exception the court has expressly and repeatedly refused to recognize is a general
Unit 17 P1 Unit 17 P1 Warrantless Arrests Generally, an officer may make an arrest in a public place without a warrant if probable cause exists. Probable cause in this scenario does not require the approval of a judge or magistrate, rather it may be derived from reliable tips, a routine vehicle stop, a "stop and frisk" or any additional evidence that an officer observes. Also, an officer may enter private property to make an arrest, but only if "exigent" or emergency circumstances exist, such as the safety of others or even the suspect himself. Warranted arrests To obtain a warrant, probable cause would have to be presented to a judge there would be evidence and/or testimony to support the warrant. An arrest without a warrant would be one that someone, usually an officer, caught someone in the act of committing the crime.
Law ELS: 1. Police Powers 2. Criminal Courts POLICE POWERS: Stop and Search Q. Describe the powers of the police to stop and search a person on the street. (18) The powers of the police to stop and search a person on the street are stated under S1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which states that an officer can stop and search someone and their vehicle in a public place if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are carrying a prohibited article such as a knife or drugs.
You can also be searched without ‘reasonable grounds’ if it has been approved by a senior officer and this can happen if you’re suspected of being in a specific location or area and if you’re carrying a weapon or have used one. There are also requirements for a police officer before searching you. He/she must tell you their name and police station they are assigned to, what they are expecting to find on you and the reason why they want to search you, why they are allowed to search you and that you can have a record of the search. The police can search you in any place that is generally open to the public. This means they can search you anywhere other than your home and your garden, or the home or garden of someone who has given you permission to be there.
If we examine closer, the purpose of extradition we are left that, is to prevent criminals who flee from a jurisdiction to escape from punishment for criminal offence they have been accused or convicted of. Now, the question arises whether the very objective is sufficient enough while the concept of extradition purports to bring the convicted into home jurisdiction? When we see though glass of a great jurist Dr.UpendraBakshiwho refined an immense contact in realm of what constitutes human right?whether a legal person a human