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. Officer Smiths pat down was legal because it was necessary to ensure her safety. Officer Smith conducted a Terry frisk, which requires a reasonable suspicion the suspect is armed. Since the general description of the vehicle that killed another officer fit the description of the vehicle that killed another officer, Officer Smith pulled over; she has the right to pat-down the driver for her own safety. Did exigent circumstances exist for Officer Smith to give chase to this vehicle?
The pat down of the driver was very much legal based off of reasonable suspicion of the vehicle’s description. A car fitting a similar sketch was involved in an unsolved crime. According to the Terry v. Ohio case, the pat down of the driver was considered to be legal and is mainly for the protection of the officer because the driver could be armed and dangerous. Terry frisks are basically a pat down of the body and the outer layer of garments for weapons that is justified by an officer’s certainty that a suspect is
Plus the car she pulled over matched the description of a vehicle that killed a fellow officer. Was the “pat-down” of the driver legal? Officers have the right to do a pat-down search of the outer clothing to see if the suspect has any weapons when stopped with reasonable suspicion and when the Officer has a reasonable fear for his or another person’s safety. “Officer Smith conducted a Terry Frisk, which requires a reasonable suspicion the subject might be armed (Anti Essay)”, since the car she pulled over fit the description of a vehicle that killed a fellow Officer, she had the right to pat-down the driver for her safety. She had to stay alert because she did not know what the subject might do, so she had to do the pat down to make sure the subject was not carrying a weapon that could harm her.
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.
The “pat down” was legal because the “stop and frisk” or “terry stop” was a temporary detention. As well Officer Smith suspected that the occupants were responsible for the killing of a fellow officer by recognizing from a vehicle that she had been told to be on the look-out for. “Reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity is ongoing.”(Stuckey, 2013). Officer Smith was acting under the Uniform Act of Fresh Pursuit. If a police officer believes that a felony has been committed, then the officer may continue pursuit into another county or state, as long as it is done safely.
Police officer need a warrant to search a person, no matter who he is. I support the first opinion, I believe the police officers are protector of people rights, but sometimes they need to invade certain person’s own right to protect the whole society. Police officer can search without warrant in three cases, “The first, called the “plain view doctrine,” refers to situations in which the police, during the course of legal police business, see something of interest in plain view, for example, if a police officer on duty on the street, and see someone sitting in the car and use illegal drug, he can seize the evidence without the warrant. Second, the police can also legally conduct a warrantless search if you give permission for them to do so. Finally, a police officer can conduct a “search incident to arrest” without a warrant.
This means if a person is arrested without a warrant or without probable cause and incriminating evidence is discovered after the arrest, that evidence cannot be used against the arrestee. Automobile Exception: The United States Supreme Court has stated individuals have a reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles and because vehicles are “readily mobile” it is not practical to require police to obtain a search warrant for a car. If the police have reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime has been committed, they can initiate a traffic stop. Reasonable suspicion can be nothing more than the driver’s failure to use a turn signal when changing lanes or not wearing a seat belt. If the initial traffic stop is valid, and the police develop additional
Stop and search: police powers A police officer has powers to stop and search you if they have ‘reasonable grounds’ to suspect you’re carrying: * Illegal drugs * A weapon * Stolen property * Something which could be used to commit a crime, eg a crowbar You can only be stopped and searched without reasonable grounds if it has been approved by a senior police officer. This can happen if it is suspected that: * Serious violence could take place * You’re carrying a weapon or have used one * You’re in a specific location or area Before you’re searched Before you’re searched the police officer must tell you: * Their name and police station * What they expect to find, e.g. drugs * The reason they want to search you, e.g. it looks like you’re hiding something * Why they are legally allowed to search you * That you can have a record of the search and if this isn’t possible at the time, how you can get a
Ethical Case Intuitive Level 1. Immediate judgments - The first step in the ethical-decision making model is to recognize the problem. The problem is Kevin was involved in illegal activity. Although it was not his idea, and he was not the one who actually stole the car, it was still illegal and technically he could face consequences as an accomplice if caught and convicted. Despite this my immediate feeling in response to this situation is that at this point I do not report the crime.
Pineapple, Atlantis car accident Plaintiff’s Closing Argument—Automobile Collision Thank you for the close attention you have paid to this case. I remind you that this is not a criminal case where everything must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a case of negligence and as the court instructed you in Instruction No. 4; it is whether you believe certain propositions of fact submitted to you by the great weight of the evidence. That means that if the scales tip just 51% on Pineapple, Atlantis car accident Plaintiff’s side and 49% on the side of the defendant, Pineapple car accident Plaintiff is entitled to your verdict.