student responses 2 | essaywriters4life.com

150-200 words each. 1 reference minimum EACH.

Responses:

Joshua,

The Fourth Amendment protects citizen’s right to be secure in the persons, houses paper and affects from unreasonable searches and seizures. A search warrant must be obtained before a police officer can search a person or place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are exceptions to the search warrant requirement.

The Fourth Amendment itself identifies the criteria for obtaining a lawful search warrant. A police officer, or other official seeking a warrant, must establish probable cause to the satisfaction of a judge, must make an “oath or affirmation” as to the truth of the matters supporting probable cause, and must “particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” A search warrant is invalid if it covers too broad an area or does not identify specific items or persons (justia.com, 2018). A search warrant is required to be signed by a judge before the execution of the search warrant.

There are several exceptions to the search warrant requirement. Some of the exceptions include exigency, consent, administration, incident to arrest, automobile, and to for officer safety / preventing escape. The exigency exception allows law enforcement to conduct a search of a location when there is no time to obtain a warrant, often due to the imminent harm posed in the situation to human life or the imminent destruction of evidence. For example, if an officer responds to a domestic violence situation and can hear a woman screaming for her life and asking for help, it would be unreasonable for him to get a warrant before entering the residence. This exigent circumstance would grant the officer the authority to enter the premises for her safety. Consent is a warrantless search when the owner of the property simply allows the officers to search without obtaining a warrant. There are several administration searches conducted frequently many do not realize. Going to the airport is an example. Law enforcement has the authority in the interest of public safety to conduct warrantless searches of your property before entering an airport. School administration searches follow this exception as well. The automobile exception also applies to vessels (boats) and airplanes. This is the exception which allows law enforcement to conduct a warrantless search of the mobile automobiles because they are mobile. Since these vehicles could move and go to another jurisdiction or leave before the warrant process could play out, officers are not required to obtain a requirement to search an automobile if they have probable cause to search it. This reasoning is similar to the exigency exception. Officers can also search incident to making an arrest. These searches are for officer safety and to prevent escape. By ensuring everyone they arrest is searched, they can be safer by locating weapons or a means to attempt escape before the situation escalates. This type of search also applies to an officer reasonably searching for weapons and dangerous items if waiting for a warrant would put people at risk.

References:

Search Warrant Requirement. (2018, April). Retrieved January 20, 2020, from https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/warrant-…

Kenneth:

xceptions present in order to search on the spot. The law enforcement officer must be able to demonstrate to a judge that there is sufficient probable cause to believe that a criminal activity is afoot or has been committed. The judge will then have to look at the totality of the circumstances to see if enough proof exist to infringe on the person’s life in efforts to find the believed evidence of the criminal activity. The magistrate judge is the judge that the officers will lay down the information to in order to have the search approved. As previously mentioned, there are exceptions to the issuance of a search warrant via a judge. These exceptions are as follows:

1. Consent searches- Consent searches are when an officer asks for permission from the individual if they can search the area the intend to search and consent is given by the owner. A stipulation to this is that the individual must be able to withdrawl consent at any given point and can also tell you what areas you are not allowed to search. An example would be if you placed someone in your car “to stay warm” while you search, they must have the ability to be able to withdrawl their consent during the search if they so choose. You cannot just lock them in the car and leave them there out of earshot.
2. Plain view- This method can be used to conduct a search in incidents such as the following example. If an officer is told they can step inside of a home and upon being inside they notice illegal contraband or witness something of criminal intent since the officer did not physically search the area but since it was noticed in a common space in which he was permitted to look, he is now allowed to secure the item.
3. Search incident to arrest- This one is one of the most common. This exception allows an officer to search a person’s being once arrested. When the individual is lawfully arrested for a criminal act, the officer has the right to search the person, and any area within reach of that person since they are now in custody. These searches allow for additional evidence of the individual as well as providing safety for the officer and the individual themselves.
4. Exigent circumstances- This relates to if an officer believes a person is actively going to destroy, hide, or get rid of evidence if they do not act, or that a person may be in immediate danger. A good example of this is if a call comes into dispatch that there is some potential form of domestic violence occurring; when the officer approaches the door he hears a person screaming out for help from inside the home. The officer has every right to enter the home in efforts to preserve life or protect the person from being harmed.
5. Automobile exception- An officer may search an automobile for evidence since the likelihood that the evidence will be gone upon them living because of the high mobility that a vehicle has. If the evidence is not secured it could potentially be lost.
6. Hot pursuit- An officer can search the dwelling of a fleeing felon if the officer is in pursuit of an offender and they run into the dwelling they reside in.
7. Special needs- Other searches can include areas such as airport checkpoints, border checkpoints, student searches along with others. These searches typically are to help preserve the safety of others. This area can also include inventory searches such as when a person’s vehicle is being towed and the valuables in the car are accounted for so the officer will not be held accountable for any missing items once the vehicle is placed into the custody of the towing company.

I hope you all enjoyed some of my examples and they were able to help you better understand the exceptions to warrantless searches. Let me know what you guys think or if you have any questions!

Chad:

For law enforcement, a search warrant is required to search a specific person, described the place, property or device. This based on probable cause that a search is required, and it is based on the totality of circumstances Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (Staff of LII, n.d.).

For a law enforcement officer to receive a search warrant they must demonstrate to the judge that they have probable cause for the warrant. They must describe the item, property or place to be searched. They must also show that based on this probable cause that they will find evidence of a crime. The officer must attest to their warrant under oath and in written form. If the judge finds the elements the officer has provided meets the requirements for a search warrant, he or she will sign off on the search warrant.

According to Brooks (2004) Probation and Parole – are for persons who are on parole or certain probation which according to their release do not share the same liberties and protections as other citizens and do not requires reasonable suspicion to conduct a warrantless search. Plain view Doctrine – Falls under if an officer has a legal reason to be at the location such as a traffic stop, and the said violation is in plain view the officer can seize the item without a warrant. Search incident to arrest- This is a search after law enforcement makes a lawful arrest. The Officer may search the immediate area of control the offender was in. This does not mean the entire room but more of within arm’s reach. Consent – This is where a person gives verbal and or written permission to search. This person has the right to withdraw consent. Exigent circumstances – is an action by law enforcement that requires an immediate response. This means there is a safety issue, i.e. someone life is in danger and an officer must render aid. Another is that the officer believes that evidence will be destroyed and for safety or evidence preservation the officer must act. Fresh pursuit – An officer is actively pursuing a suspect and they run into their house or another residence the officer may enter without a warrant (Brooks, 2004).

Respectfully Chad

Brooks, J. D. (2004). Valid Searches and Seizures Without Warrants. Retrieved from http://www.ncids.org/: http://www.ncids.org/Defender%20Training/2004%20Fa…

The staff of LII. (n.d.). Search Warrant. Retrieved from Cornell Law School: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant

18 hours ago

Part 2:

Kenneth:

According to the week 2 wrap up discussion, there was probable cause found against Mayo in the homicide of Scowen. Since there was probable cause, the arrest was lawfully conducted and Mayo was able to be taken into custody. Law enforcement does not NEED an arrest warrant prior to arresting mayo, however, they must have enough probable cause to be able to arrest him, transport him to the jail, and have the judge on duty issue the warrant upon their arrival. An arrest warrant does not need to be in hand when the suspect is placed into custody but the warrant must be known that it will be issued to be considered a lawful arrest. This is similar to when people are arrested for shoplifting at Walmart and are held in a local jail for a reasonable amount of time awaiting the warrant to be issued, if the warrant is not issued the person walks. Assuming the beer bottle and gun are still in the bar, law enforcement would not need a search warrant. Since this is a local establishment where a crime had been committed, law enforcement officers have every right to enter the premises and in doing so can utilize the plain view doctrine to obtain the weapons (beer bottle and gun). If they were to look further into anything outside of plain view, it would behoove them to obtain the search warrant in efforts to make sure everything is handled in a legal and lawful manner.

I still have a hard time understanding that self-defense can lead someone to probable cause of a crime being committed. Granted, Scowen is dead at the hand of Mayo, how can we say it was a crime if it truly was in self-defense? Can anyone further explain this to me because I still feel like there was not PC to arrest, but according to the wrap up there is. Thanks for yall’s input!

Carlos:

Greetings Class,

Under the circumstances that law enforcement entered the bar where Mayo was at, I have to say that his arrest was legal and did not violate his rights. There are two elements for a lawful arrest, one being that a person has either committed or suspected of coming a crime and second that the arresting officer has reasonable grounds in believing that it is necessary (CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE STATUTORY POWER OF ARREST BY POLICE OFFICERS, 2012). Since Mayo was stating that he committed the crime there was reasonable grounds to arrest him. While there were a few witnesses, they were not able to clearly see what was going on from my understanding on the scenario so the officer would have to go with his professional background to see if there was probable cause which I do believe there was.

Regarding an arrest warrant, there was no need for one when it came to arresting Mayo. This is considered a warrantless arrest which as is name states does not need a warrant. The officer needs probable cause to arrest someone without a warrant and this needs to be shown when it is brought up to a judge. Based on the facts of the crime scene the officer did have probable cause, there was a dead person in the bar, a weapon, and Mayo stating he did it. If there were more valuable witnesses, it would help make the case clearer but all we can go for is with the officer’s probable cause instincts.

While making a legal arrest law enforcement is allowed to seize any evidence in plain view from my learning this week on the exceptions to the search warrant rules (Officer, 2016). Now this does not mean that the officer can walk around and gather evidence. He can seize what it is in plain sight. Since this is a crime scene that’s in an establishment it would have been closed off so the public would not be able to enter the scene, so the crime scene and or evidence would have not been obstructed and the officer would have time to gather a search warrant for further searching of the bar.

CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE STATUTORY POWER OF ARREST BY POLICE OFFICERS. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.gmpcc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/0…

Officer, L. (2016, January 8). Investigations: Seven exceptions to the search warrant rule. Retrieved from Law Officer: https://www.lawofficer.com/investigations-seven-ex…

Amory:

Hello Class,

In the scenario in week 1 I believe that the police officers had the right to arrest Mayo. They the right because they were called to the crime scene in which there was a civil dispute that turned into a lethal killing. The arrest was legal because the police officers did not need a warrant because they were call to the scene of a possible homicide killing. With that being said they did not need a warrant prior to arresting Mayo because when they arrived on scene they seen a person shot and killed. They then proceeded to get the story from Mayo that he threatened him with a bottle that he was going to kill him. After he made that threat Mayo took out his hand gun and discharged it killing him. The had enough probable cause followed by factual evidence that they did not need to get a warrant. Another way to look at it is that they were in a public environment that the officers have access to without needing a warrant. The law enforcement officers do have the right to seize the weapons because it is now apart of their investigation on whether or not Mayo killed the individual lawfuly or unlawfully. They have to take all evidence because they all are apart of the story in which someone was killed. All of the weapons have to be taken and properly maintained for the court proceedings.

 

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code “Newclient” for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.