ipl-logo

No Probable Cause To Arrest Hayes Essay

551 Words3 Pages

This is a criminal case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes. Hayes did not give consent to be taken to the police station and be detained plus fingerprint. Therefore, Hayed Fourth Amendment rights were violated and the conviction was overturned. Fact of the case: In the 1980’s there was a series of rape and burglary that happened in Punta Gorda Florida. The perpetrator left a fingerprint on the doorknob of one of the victim’s bedroom doors and a herringbone pattern tennis shoe print in one of the victim’s front yard near the front door. The police questioned about thirty to forty men in the area and focused on one main suspect, Hayes. The police went to Hayes home and requested a fingerprint, and Hayes …show more content…

Where there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes, no consent to go to the police station, and no prior judicial authorization for detaining him, the investigative detention at the station for fingerprinting purposes violated Hayes rights under the Fourth Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Reasoning: The police without a warrant or probable cause removed a subject from his home and transported him to the police station, where he was not free to go, although he was there briefly for questioning, In addition fingerprinted him. This violated his fourth and fourteen Amendment rights. The courts made impermissible Use of the testimony even if law enforcement had reasonable suspicion. Rule of law: An individual cannot be brought to a police station and fingerprinted without probable cause or a warrant. The courts compared the cases of Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721. (Investigatory detentions). Dunaway v. New York 442 U.S. 200 (1979), (Detention for interrogation). Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), (reviewed the application of unreasonable seizures). References; Joe HAYES v. FLORIDA, 470 U.S. 811, 105 S. Ct. 1643, 84 L. Ed. 2d 705

Show More
Related
933 Words | 4 Pages

A warrantless search is only reasonable if it is within the specified exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of a warrant. The specific exception covers the applicability of warrantless search conducted incident to a lawful arrest. In this case, such a warrant is only justified by officers’ safety interests or while seeking to prevent potential evidence destruction. Data on a suspect’s cell phone cannot physically harm an officer.

Read More
644 Words | 3 Pages

Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1969)) • The officer who conducted search on Ybarra provided no evidence that he believe he was armed and dangerous , the search of Ybarra was a violation of his constitutional rights and the decision of the lower courts were reversed • The decision was majority 6 justices to 3, the dissenting opinions were from Justice Rehnquist , Justice Blackmun and Justice Burger they argued that the search of the bar was necessary and the case presented a different set of circumstances to the Terry v Ohio suspicion standard stating that an officer is in more danger executing a warrant than making a standard police stop on the

Read More
236 Words | 1 Pages

1. What constitutional rights were violated? How were they violated? Breaking and entering, illegal search, and questioning a suspect without informing him of his rights were the constitutional rights violated in this scenario. Arnie and the officer entered into the suspects home without a warrant or probable cause and they then proceeded to search his house illegal and used the evidence in the house to question him without using informing him of his rights.

Read More
549 Words | 3 Pages

In this case Kyllo v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled against the vitric of the lower courts on a 5 to 4 vote. The questions that need to be answered in this case, in my opinion serve a bigger purpose then the case at hand. The case itself is about a man named Danny Kyllo who was growing marijuana plants inside his home illegally. An officer of the U.S Interior Department got a tip that this man was illegally growing plants inside his home and went to investigate this. Obviously a tip from an unknown is not enough information to get a warrant to search the man’s property.

Read More
435 Words | 2 Pages

Since the police officer had a reasonable suspicion that the Respondent was holding drugs, the officer’s search and seizure of the cocaine was reasonable since the search remained within the bounds set forth by Terry v. Ohio. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a police officer’s sense of touch does not incur an invasion of Petitioner’s privacy during a stop and

Read More
1299 Words | 6 Pages

Within this court case, it was determined that that searches and seizures require a warrant unless it is to prevent a future crime from happening. The court also referenced Arizona v. Gant, which focused on whether or not officers may search property found on or near the arrestee and also discussed elements of Chimel v. California, which stated that it is reasonable for an officer to search a person and that it is reasonable for an officer to search and seize any evidence from an arrestee if it is to protect it from being destroyed. The Supreme Court also cited United States v. Robinson, which also cited that a search led to

Read More
506 Words | 3 Pages

To which amendment to the constitution does the case relate? Mapp appealed her case to the Supreme Court stating that the 4th Amendment should be incorporated. The 4th Amendment prohibits against unreasonable searches and seizures, and during Mapp’s arrest, the police came to the founding of the evidence presented in the trial without a warranty. Fourth 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

Read More
584 Words | 3 Pages

The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).

Read More
742 Words | 3 Pages

According to the Fourth Amendment, people have the right to be secure in their private property, and may only be searched with probable cause. However, in a recent case, this right was violated by the government. An Oregon citizen, with the initials of DLK, was suspected of growing marijuana in his home. The federal government used a thermal imager to scan his home, and were later given a warrant to physically search his home. However, many remain divided over whether or not this scan was constitutional, as there was no warrant at the time of the scan.

Read More
1872 Words | 8 Pages

41. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution.

Read More
153 Words | 1 Pages

Several exceptions to the Fourth amendment have been made over the past several decades, with some being understandable and others being questionable. Consenting to a search results in not needing a warrant, though this poses many exceptions and complications, i.e. the scope of the consent given, whether consent is voluntarily specified, or whether a person has the right to consent to a search of another's property. Another understandable exception is the “plain view” doctrine, where an officer (acting in legal presence) can seize plain view objects. The stipulation to this is that the officer must have had probable clause that the objects seized are contraband. Exigent circumstances, where it would be harmful or impractical to obtain a warrant

Read More
106 Words | 1 Pages

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Consitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The common misconception is that it simply covers what it states. In the age of development and new technology, it is likely that what we consider secrets or personal information is not as secret or personal as we once believed. Important pieces of evidence or information have often been found through illegal means, and this has led to many cases that change the way the constitution and the Fourth Amendment affect

Read More
459 Words | 2 Pages

Interested Protected The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides,”The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effect, against unreasonable searches and seizure, shall not be violate, but upon probable causes, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or thing to do

Read More
1496 Words | 6 Pages

Is war really a battle fought between two nations or more? The oxford definition of war is a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. In relation to war, racial profiling can be seen as an undeclared war. An undeclared war is a term used for disagreement fought without an official declaration. The undeclared war between male minorities and police forces is a constant issue that is being surpassed in our society.

Read More
1588 Words | 7 Pages

According to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, 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 exclusionary rule is not a constitutional right. Rather, it is more often considered a court-created remedy to policing methods as well as a deterrent against unlawful search and seizure, which is covered in the fourth-amendment. The exclusionary rule does not allow the government to use evidence gained that violates the constitution of the United States. In addition, any evidence gained through this method will be considered according to the same rule, meaning that it will not be allowed.

Read More

More about No Probable Cause To Arrest Hayes Essay

Open Document