Racial Profiling by Police Essays

The exclusionary rule is part of the American Constitution it states that evidence that had been taken by the cops, is not admissible in the court of the American law. This precaution created to protect the Constitution. Contrarily, this rule also states in the 5th amendment that nobody should be deprived of life, liberty or property without the correct process of the law being used. The exclusionary rule also explains, that thus rule is grounded throughout the Constitution and most importantly the fourth ammendment, and was established to help citizens from being illegally searched and seizured. This rule can also be applied to

i) Police officers must prove that the search is reasonable with the search warrant which includes Specific area to be searched.

For the police to legally detain, question, and search a citizen without a warrant they will need probable cause. Probable cause is the police giving sufficient reasons to conduct those procedures. Also if officers reasonably believe that a person is armed and dangerous they do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a frisk for weapons. The court case Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) affirmed this decision. The question of this case was if

Search warrants are issued around the world when there is a probable cause and it requires one.

The actions of the police officer unlawfully exceeded the bounds of permissible inquiry by detaining the defendant for an unnecessary length of time, after issuing a written warning thus, violating the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and invalidating any evidence obtained, or statements made.

In this case since the imaging in this case was an unlawful search, it will remain for the District Court to determine whether, without the evidence it provided, the search warrant was supported by probable cause—and if not, whether there is any other basis for supporting admission of that evidence.

Although there are benefits to the stop and frisk exception, the abuse of or inappropriate application of the practice calls into question the extent of the authority police exercise when their perception of “reasonable suspicion” exists. As Hall states, the officer is not required to advise the individual that they have the right to refuse to provide a consent to search (2014), and as a result, those individuals who have been lead to believe by coercion or lack of knowledge of the law; that they have no say in the search of their person, property, papers, or effects. As a result, searches of this nature may be deemed inadmissible or violations of the individual's rights.

Evidence of the Handgun and Magazine Should not be Suppressed Because Officer Richardson Seized the Evidence in Plain View and as a Result of a Protective Sweep

This case came to be due to what transpired after a traffic stop by a New York State Police Officer. The Police Officer pulled over the driver due to speeding. The owner of the car was not present, but there were four men inside the vehicle including Roger Belton was the respondent in this case. The Police Officer smelled marijuana in the car. He also saw an envelope that might have contained the drug. The men inside the car were ordered to get out of the vehicle and were soon arrested for this possession. The men were separated, patted down and searched. The Police Officer proceeded to search the vehicle for other drugs and came across the passenger compartment. There the officer found Roger Belton's coat, which contained cocaine inside a pocket. Belton attempted to have the cocaine, which was found during the search, suppressed from the court. But this was rejected. Then the final state appellate went on to reverse the decision because the search of the passenger compartment and jacket should have never took place due to the nature of the arrest. The state went on to be granted certiorari and the decision was changed once again due to the general feeling that the warrantless search of the vehicle's compartment and jacket were justifiable because of the circumstances of the arrest.

(a) The presence of the stolen car parts can be used as a basis to get a search warrant for Dan’s property because the officers had probable cause to believe the there was evidence of a crime to be found at Dan’s property. A search warrant may be issued for any of the following, the evidence was of a crime, the car parts are instruments of designed for use, intended for use, and used in committing the crime, they are also contraband, fruits of crime, and items illegally possessed. On the other hand, based on the exclusionary rule, a law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial, applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the 4th amendment also seen in Mapp v. Ohio 1961 case.

I believe the defining issue came when the officer felt the small object (not a weapon) in the back pocket and removed it. I am assuming since it was described as a “container”, it was closed and the officer had no way to discern what it was at that moment. As outlined in Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) "[e]ven if we recognized a 'plain feel' exception, the search in this case would not qualify" because "[t]he pat search of the defendant went far beyond what is permissible under Terry." Id., at 843 and 844, n. 1. As the State Supreme Court read the record, the officer conducting the search ascertained that the lump in respondent's jacket was contraband only after probing and investigating what he certainly knew was not a weapon. See id., at 844. In this case, the officer essentially did the same thing. Furthermore, once the officer opened the container and discovered lock picking tools, the container was illegally searched and the contents illegally seized. I base this conclusion on State v. Wise (1994), in which the court found that a Trooper’s search of a closed container based on suspicion, not probable cause, constituted an illegal search. The officer only had suspicion that Tommy may be about to commit a criminal act, and lacked any probable cause to allow for a search, let alone look for a lock picking set, which by the account, he did not know that is what it was until it was opened. The ensuing search incident to arrest and diagram became fruit of the poisonous

-Circumstances under which an officer can conduct a search greatly involve an officer’s belief that probable cause exists. In other words, an officer can conduct a search when they believe that they contain a reasonable suspicion that the individual in which they want to search is guilty or will be guilty of a crime. This also comes to signify that the circumstance in which an office can conduct such searches revolves around the officer’s belief that the individual in question also contains illegal items or evidence.

The four requirements of a valid search warrant consist of probable cause, supporting oath or affirmation, description of the place to be searched as well as items to be seized and the signature of a magistrate. Probable case is more than a minimal suspicion that crime has already or about to take place. Supporting oath or affirmation is an affidavit that is presented to a magistrate that should not be only an officer’s conclusion but full of facts from the case. This affidavit should have enough facts that would enable the magistrate to make an independent evaluation. Every affidavit should description the location that is going to be searched as well as the items that are going to be seized. And lastly the search warrant must have the signature of a neutral and detached magistrate. An example of a neutral and detached magistrate would be in the case of Connally v. Georgia. In the case of Connally v. Georgia: the Justice of the Peace instead of a magistrate issued the search warrants. The Justice of the peace would only be paid once he has issued a search warrant so if he did not issue a search warrant he/she would not be paid. During Connally’s trial the defendant claimed that the Justice of the Peace was not neutral and detached since he was paid to issue the warrant. According to Carmen “The general rule is that a search or seizure is valid under the Fourth Amendment only if made with a warrant. Searches without

The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court was to affirm the initial conviction. It was held that a police officer who witnessed conduct what is consistent with those of a crime and who properly identifies himself upon the stop is acting reasonably and not exceeding the reasonable scope of search in performing a pat down search of the outer clothing to feel for weapons. It was determined that McFadden had the right to stop and search these individuals based on the idea that he believed these men were about to commit a crime. This decision lowered

Once of the most common ways for an official to conduct a search without a warrant is known as a consent search. This type of search generally happens when a person is being questioned and the officer would like to look at or search a persons belongings, vehicle or dwelling. An officer will generally just ask if s/he can search their belongings or vehicle or dwelling. Once permission is given, the officer is able to legally search and evidence found will be admissible in court. Consent searches are not unnecessarily cart blanche though. Consent can be given to search a specific item, part of a vehicle, or even restrict what the officer may look for. (Elkins, 2009). There are other ways that allow for a search or seizure to occur without consent that are commonly used.