ipl-logo

Probable Cause In Law

1385 Words6 Pages

probable cause is to be clearly established by law enforcement in order to conduct a legal search of your property or your person. Consent from the individual to allow the search can substitute the probable cause, if none exists for law enforcement to act upon. This is applicable to individual searches, vehicle searches and searches of your home or any other property. For example, if law enforcement stops you exiting a convenience store and suspects you of shoplifting, they must first establish the probable cause or reasonable suspicion to detain you lawfully. If this is done correctly, through either witness information or firsthand observation, then law enforcement can request a search of your property (e.g. backpack, pant pockets, etc.) …show more content…

This is one of many exceptions to the 4th Amendment. Additional exceptions exist and have been accepted in exclusive circumstances. These exceptions are search incident to an arrest, plain view, stop and frisk (plain feel), hot pursuit/ exigent circumstance, and the automobile exception. The plain view doctrine allows a police officer to seize objects not described in a warrant when executing a lawful search or seizure if he observes the object in plain view and has probable cause to believe that it relates to criminal activities (Busby, 2009, para. 1). For example, if an officer is executing a legal search warrant of someone’s property and while looking for the listed property, the officer comes across other illegal evidence that is in plain view, the officer may seize that new evidence legally. The reasoning behind it is simply coincidental discovery, while the officer is there lawfully as per the search …show more content…

Colorado (1949). The case details here state that Julius Wolf (the “petitioner”) was convicted by a State court of conspiring to commit abortions based upon evidence allegedly obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause ("Case Brief Wolf v. Colorado," 1949, para. 1). In this case though, the question that was brought forth was, if the states required to exclude illegally seized evidence from trial under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments ("Case Brief Wolf v. Colorado," 1949, para. 1).The case argument was that if evidence was seized illegally in violation of the fourth amendment’s protection, does that violation clearly impede the rights protected under due process, which is the fourteenth amendment. No, due process is not denied when evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure is admitted by a State court for a State offense. Unlike the requirements and restrictions placed by the Bill of Rights upon federal authorities, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution does not subject criminal justice in the States to certain limitations ("Case Brief Wolf v. Colorado," 1949, para. 5).In this case’s conclusion, it was stated that the fourth amendment protection still applied to any state case through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore the protection was just like at the federal

Show More
Related
1331 Words | 6 Pages

Given the totality of circumstances, an officer has satisfied the probable cause standard to arrest an individual believing that a felony is or has occurred in the officer’s presents. This type of warrantless arrest does not violate an individual’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Decision: Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the Court’s opinion on this case. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that citizens “are to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” This right is pushed down to the state level by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ensures that warrantless arrests can be conducted by police officers when the standard of probable cause has been met.

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
428 Words | 2 Pages

A Washington police officer stopped a student at the Washington State University after observing the student was carrying a bottle of gin. After asking the student for identification the student informed him that is was in his dorm room. The student, followed by the officer, then went into his room get his identification. While the student was searching for his identification, the officer noticed that the student 's roommate, had marijuana seeds and a pipe on his desk. The officer asked the students if they had additional drugs in the room and the students provided him with a box with marijuana and money.

Read More
475 Words | 2 Pages

The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.

Read More
579 Words | 3 Pages

Chapter 4 is titled "Criminal Investigatory Search Warrants. " Search warrant laws are found in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The elements of a search warrant include: (1) an order in writing, (2) issued by a proper judicial authority, (3) in the name of the people, (4) directed to a law enforcement officers, (5) commanding the officer to search for certain personal property, and (6) commanding the officer to bring that property before the judicial authority named in the warrant. Neutral judicial officers such as clerks of court, magistrates, complaint justices, judges, and justices of the peace are allowed to issue search warrants in their permitted jurisdictions. They must have probable cause before they can authorize a search warrant, which is usually done through an affidavit submitted by the law

Read More
285 Words | 2 Pages

The exclusionary rule can make evidence inadmissible in the court of law if that evidence was illegally obtained by a police officer. This protects an individual from unlawful searches and serves as an effective deterrent for police misconduct. One could argue that a mistake on the officer’s behalf should not result in the release of a criminal. This assertion would be reasonable if these fourth amendment violations committed by police officers were honest mistakes. Unfortunately, some illegal evidence is found because of deliberate misconduct by the police.

Read More
584 Words | 3 Pages

According to Wolf v Colorado (1949) wolf’s attorneys case was that since the evidence that was obtained and used against him in court was not lawfully obtained it should not be admissible due to the fact that if it was a federal case automatically it would not have been admissible. So it did not make sense that it would be different for the state courts. The case was controversial because the Fourth Amendment does not clearly state that the states must follow the due process law of the Fourth Amendment. “Unlike the specific requirements and restrictions placed by the Bill of Rights (Amendments I to VIII) upon the administration of criminal justice by federal authority, the Fourteenth Amendment did not subject criminal justice in the

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
433 Words | 2 Pages

Consent to a search- is the process where an individual gives his or her consent to an officer or voluntarily permit a police officer before he conducts a search for his or her property. There is no warrant required for this process. Consent to a search must be voluntarily and not pressured. Furthermore, the police cannot search a home when one person invites them while another person refuses to grant them the visit. 2.

Read More
194 Words | 1 Pages

“Probable cause is a reasonable ground for a belief, as, in a criminal case, that the accused was guilty of the crime, or, in a civil case, that grounds for the action existed: used especially as a defense to an action for malicious prosecution (Pearson, pg. 68)”. Probable cause requirements come from the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. A law enforcement officer must prove probable cause to a judge in order to search with a warrant. If any search or arrest is made without any warrant the officer must prove that there was any probable cause involved. Any evidence gathered at the crime scene

Read More
188 Words | 1 Pages

Shay Reyes Chapter 7 Question 2 Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are similar in a sense but also very different. Reasonable suspicion is just an officer’s hunch, basically their “gut” feeling. They could feel like someone is acting a certain way, that seems very suspicious and question the suspect. But that’s all they can do with having reasonable suspicion. Probably cause is more of having concrete evidence.

Read More
1006 Words | 5 Pages

There are some exceptions to warrantless searches under the plain view doctrine in regards to specific locations that may be searched by the officer and what can be seized. An officer may seize what is considered to be evidence or contraband if the officer has a reason to believe that it will be destroyed or come up missing. If an officer is in pursuit, executing a search warrant, on an emergency call, regardless of the nature of the emergency call, or conducting a stop and frisk, the officer "is not expected to overlook illegal objects in plain sight", (Hall, 2015, p. 425). If the officer is on the scene of an emergency call, the officer can search and seize any contraband that is in plain view and obtain a search warrant for the remainder of the premises, if the officer can articulate that probable cause exists. The same applies to an officer engaged in a pursuit, and the suspect flees on foot into a residence.

Read More
427 Words | 2 Pages

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated… We all know the fourth amendment. It's the amendment that guarantees our safety within our homes and our personal belongings. Yet, how much do you know about the fourth amendment? The fourth amendment is full of history, controversy, and discussion, even in modern day.

Read More
171 Words | 1 Pages

Probable cause are those facts and circumstances that lead a reasonable police to believe that the person that officer stopped has committed a crime. Officers can use reasonable suspicion in order to work towards probable cause. Reason suspicion are those facts and circumstances that lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime may have been committed and that person they detained may have committed that crime. You can briefly detain for what is

Read More
1363 Words | 6 Pages

Criminal law brings the power of state, with all its resources to bear against the person. Criminal procedures are designed to protect the constitutional rights of individuals and to prevent the arbitrary use of authority of the part of the government (Miller, 2013). The United States government provides specific safeguards for those accused of crime and most of these safeguards guard individuals against government actions, as well as federal government actions of the due process section of the Fourteenth Amendment. The constitutional safeguards are set forth in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. This paper describes the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments from the viewpoint of adult and juvenile criminal court proceedings.

Read More

More about Probable Cause In Law

Related Topics

Open Document