Is Appropriate Cause For Law Enforcement's Unfair Arrest?

The standard for a legal arrest is probable cause. For an officer to make an arrest, he or she must have more than a mere hunch yet less than actual knowledge that the arrestee committed the crime (Peak, 2009). Law enforcement officers need to make certain they understand probable cause is different than reasonable suspicion. A good example of a reasonable suspicion encounter is Terry V. Ohio, where an officer who had 39 years of experience in law enforcement observed two men standing on a street corner. It appeared based on the officer’s experience the two men were casing a store because they both were walking up and down the street peering into the store windows, and then they would return to the corner to conference. While the officer

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

At final, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s ruling. The Court said that all claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force whether deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop or any other seizure of a citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, rather than the under a substantive due process. The court also stated that a seizure occurs when a law enforcment officer terminates a free citizen’s movement by a means interntionally applied. An officer may sieze a person in many ways including: traffic stops, investigative detentions, and arrests are all seizures under the 4th amendmet. To seize a person, an officer may yell, “stop”, handcuff, a baton, or a firearm can be used to comply the subject with officer orders.

The case of United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976) was recognized by the Supreme Court as a warrantless arrest with probable cause in public places did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Since this individual was robbed in a public place a warrantless arrest can exist. However, the officer must have probable cause such as adequate reason that the person had committed a felony crime before an arrest is executed. Therefore, probable cause can be determined by a statement from the victims, witnesses, personal knowledge, observation of the officer, reliable hearsay, and informant tips. Nevertheless, if the crime occurs in an officer present, then a misdemeanant that breach the peace does not need a warrant. On the other hand, each state has

Failure to abide by these procedures can result in a mistrial or exclusion of evidence. Types of improper procedure can include a non-consented and unreasonable search being conducted, entry onto a property without lawful authority (such as a warrant), an arrest without reasonable suspicion, arrest purely for questioning, use of excessive force, failing to allow an arrested person to have their rights, and keeping an uncharged suspect in custody for more than 4 hours (8 with consent form the magistrate). This rule does not apply to suspects of terrorism, who can be held in custody without a charge for up to 14 days. These procedures help protect the rights and safety of victims, suspects and

Law enforcement officers are given much power and authority over one’s civil liberties. Not only do they have a duty but also a responsibility to enforce laws and ordinances in their jurisdiction, maintain order and protect its people. In some cases, the only way to accomplish this is through legitimized use of force. Use of force can best be described as "the amount of effort required by a law enforcement officer to induce compliance of an unwilling subject" (nij.gov, 2012). With that said, law enforcement officers have been given the right to apply only enough force necessary to control a situation, while defending others, preventing escape, during self-defense and while a subject is resisting arrest (Pollock, pp. 234). It is not until that force becomes excessive that it becomes say an issue.

Police are violating the 4th amendment which is protection from unreasonable searches and seizes. Police officers are stopping and frisking black and latino people just because of the color of their skin or what they are wearing. The police officers are harassing them and stopping them in public and leaving them with little to no explanation. Donnel Baird a community organizer in Brownsville, New York believes that real criminals are too advanced to be out in the public's eye and out for police officers to stop and search them to actually find something on them that could help them. When it comes to the topic of policing, most of us will readily agree that they are necessary to help keep peace in the community. Where this agreement usually

As crime rates rise, police must come up with new methods to counteract these increases. Many of these methods come with pros and cons that may affect the way the public views Police officers and law enforcement in general. Some of these methods may seem like a violation to people’s rights, even though they may be constitutional. One of these methods known as Stop and Frisk is one of the most widely debated topics in America when it comes to dealing with Police actions and Constitutional rights.

The United States’ Criminal Justice System and its policies have subtly changed during the past century however, there is one policy implemented in the late 1960’s and more intensely enforced in the 1980’s that many think to be unconstitutional. The police history within the realm of the American Judicial system has been filled with a need to adapt and reform to new challenges when it comes to preventing crime. If we think about the 1980s, cops were allowed to stop someone based on reasonable suspicion and beyond a reasonable doubt, and this is still allowed today under justification. This is part of their job. Police Officers have the ultimate power to prevent crimes, through arrests, use of physical force, enforcing the laws, and to stop

A detention is reasonable when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, under the totality of the circumstance, provide an objective basis for suspecting the particular person detained may be involved in criminal activity. (People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224.) As such, an investigatory stop based on mere curiosity, rumor or hunch is an unlawful seizure, even though the officer may be acting in good faith. (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629.) Nonetheless, reasonable suspicion cannot be justified after the fact by evidence of criminal activity uncovered during the course of the detention. (People v. Gale (1973) 9 Cal.3d 788.) Moreover, mere proximity cannot be enough to create reasonable suspicion because proximity

Even brief street detentions are arrests, and pat downs are searches, so the police can’t do anything unless they’ve got probable cause.

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance, which requires a permit for parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest (53).

Once someone reaches a level of reasonable suspicion, police officers are allowed to stop and frisk the suspects. If they are still thought to be participating in illegal activity it becomes probable cause and then the suspect will be arrested and interrogated. Due to Miranda rights people have the opportunity to speak with an attorney before being questioned and may also have one present while being questioned.

Racial profiling is an example of police brutality, which is defined by Gross and Livingston (2002) as “the practice of some officers of stopping motorists of certain racial or ethnic groups because the officer believe that these groups are more likely than others to commit certain types of crimes” (p.1413). Therefore, individuals are treated unfairly by law enforcement solely based on their race. This type of mistreatment is unmerited and ultimately a violation of an individual’s rights. However, in many instances the courts do not find it a violation of their civil rights based on the fact that racial profiling is difficult to prove. Often, prosecutors are disinclined in bringing forth a case against officers on this particular matter. Officers are permitted to stop and search individuals and their vehicles whenever there is reasonable suspicion, however, there has been studies that prove that some law enforcement officers restrict these rights primarily to minority groups. Bowling and Phillips found that although there was no formal monitoring of use of these powers, it was concluded that it was particularly heavy use of these powers against ethnic minorities, largely of young black people (as cited in Sharp & Atherton, 2007, p. 747) . In several cases, officers argue that they reasonably pulled an individual over for other probable grounds such as: traffic violations, suspicious behavior, etc., with race never being an

A police officer’s abuse of power comes from the amounts of stop and frisks towards people of color and the actions taken for the arrest. A police officer will use pre-textual stops to justify stopping a black person. If an officer deems a black person to be suspicious based on appearance, then that black person has committed a crime. John Clemons, writer of a journal article, “Blind injustice: The