Pertinent US Supreme Court
Your responses must be at least 150 words of content and supported by a minimum of two scholarly and/or credible sources (i.e., classroom materials or reliable, outside sources)
1. Kashey Kemp
Aug 24, 2023 at 10:44 PM
CRJ 306| Discussion 1| Week 3
Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause
*Define and evaluate both of these significant legal terms, and utilize pertinent U.S. Supreme Court opinions to justify your answers.
In U.S. Criminal law, probable cause is defined as the standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for arresting a suspected criminal or issuing a warrant. This term means that there is reasonably reliable information that is a “fair probability” that an individual has committed a crime, or if a search is conducted, that search will reveal evidence or contraband. Probable cause does not have a universally accepted definition or formulation for probable cause. One pertinent U.S. Supreme Court opinion used to justify my answer comes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Beck v. Ohio in 1964. In that case, “whether at the moment of arrest,” the facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a person in believing a had committed or was committing a crime (Samson v. California, 2006).
The term reasonable suspicion is not of constitutional derivation but was fashioned by the court to describe a level of suspicion lower than probable cause (Rutledge, 2011). The court has struggled to provide meaningful definitions of both terms and law enforcement officers have likewise struggled to understand and apply the court’s vague, general pronouncements (Rutledge, 2011). In Ornelas v. U.S., the court acknowledged the problem (Rutledge, 2011).
Reasonable suspicion and probable cause involve a two-step process. The court has first to identify all relevant and historical known to the law enforcement at the time of the search or stop; and secondly, the court must decide whether, under a standard of objective reasonableness, those facts would give rise to a reasonable suspicion justifying a stop or probable cause to search (Ornelas & Ornelas Ledesma, 1996). An example of this is if an officer wants to search your house, he is letting you know that he has reason to search your dwelling because he believes that you have something illegal in your home, but he is required to give you a reason.
*Address what happens in court to a criminal case when an officer does not possess reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
In a criminal case, the court case is dismissed when an officer does not possess reasonable suspicion or probable cause. When it comes to cases that come before a judge, the judge ultimately has the discretion on whether there is probable cause to proceed with a court case.
2. Kayla Roy
Aug 24, 2023 at 10:16 PM
Define and evaluate both of these significant legal terms, and utilize pertinent U.S. Supreme Court opinions to justify your answers.
Based on facts and circumstances that would make a reasonable person believe that a search or arrest is warranted, a legal standard known as “probable cause” demands a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. It is held to a higher level than merely having grounds for suspicion but falls short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, places a key emphasis on probable cause (THE FEDORA LAWYER, 2023). The Supreme Court highlighted that probable cause should be assessed in a reasonable, total-of-the-circumstances way, taking into account all relevant information, in the seminal decision of Illinois v. Gates (1983). This instance strengthened the notion that proof of probable causality need not be conclusive (Kenton, 2022).
Legally speaking, reasonable suspicion is less demanding than probable cause. It refers to the conviction that illegal action could be taking place, based on particular facts. It is the degree of suspicion that permits law enforcement authorities to stop someone and search them briefly for investigative purposes. In the Terry v. Ohio case from 1968, the concept of reasonable suspicion was looked at. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment’s ban on irrational searches and seizures does not apply to a quick stop and frisk based on a reasonable suspicion that the person being stopped might be armed and dangerous (Terry V. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), n.d.). The Court noted that while the requirement for reasonable suspicion is less stringent than that for probable cause, it nonetheless demands more than an abstract, generalized suspicion or hunch. Individuals whose rights were violated may have grounds for a civil rights case against law enforcement officials or their department if it is found that they acted without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Compensation for losses incurred as a result of the violation may be obtained through such legal actions.
Address what happens in court to a criminal case when an officer does not possess reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
It can have significant repercussions on the legal system when a law enforcement officer does not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause in a criminal case. Such circumstances could have violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment protections against arbitrary searches and seizures. Due to the exclusionary rule’s application, this infraction may cause important evidence to be omitted from the trial (Amendment IV. Searches and Seizures, n.d.). The U.S. Supreme Court established the rule that evidence collected through illegal means, such as a search or seizure without a valid reason, is not admissible in court. The prosecution’s case might be compromised as a result, and the court might hold hearings to decide whether evidence has to be suppressed. In the end, this legal measure protects the integrity of the criminal justice system by preventing the use of evidence gathered in defiance of the defendant’s fundamental rights.
3. Christopher Murray
Aug 24, 2023 at 12:12 PM
5th Amendment .key
Hello Class,
Slide 1 Introduction
Slide 2
The definition of the Fifth Amendment….
It contains a number of provisions relating to criminal law, including guarantees of due process and of the right to refuse to answer questions in order to avoid incriminating oneself.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime (Legal)
Slide 3
The requirements of the fifth amendment with regards to self incrimination
The requirements are listed below that do not help with self incrimination. When you are on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Slide 4
What steps have to be done to make self incriminating states be admissible in court?
If someone just tells on themselves to the police, they could possibly wave their rights away if they decide to answer questions.
Documents found by police during search or seizure with a valid warrant (e.g., a voluntarily written diary which has criminal act records), and/or
Business records prepared voluntarily and required by law to keep (e.g., tax returns proving fraud) (Legal).
Under the Fifth Amendment, any statements that a defendant in custody makes during an interrogation are admissible as evidence at a criminal trial only if law enforcement told the defendant of the right to remain silent and the right to speak with an attorney before the interrogation started, and the rights were either exercised or waived in a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent manner (Miranda v. Arizona).
Slide 5
Little bit about Miranda v. Arizona
In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) ruled that an arrested individual is entitled to rights against self-incrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) culminated in the famed “Miranda rights” requirement during arrests.
During his two-hour interrogation, police did not advise Miranda on his constitutional rights to an attorney nor against self-incrimination. Nonetheless, he signed a written confession affirming knowledge of these rights and admitting to crimes.
The Supreme Court ruled differently on June 13, 1966. It held that presenting Miranda’s confession as evidence violated his constitutional rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments. The 5th Amendment protects from self-incrimination and requires the police to inform the detainee about his or her rights while the 6th guarantees criminal suspects rights to personal or state issued attorney.
Slide 6
The remedy for a defendant when a motion to suppress is granted for violation of the fifth amendment…..
The judge decides on the motion based on proof by a preponderance of the evidence. If it is more likely than not that the evidence was obtained illegally, then the motion is granted.
If the motion to suppress is granted, the judge will order the evidence excluded from the trial.
If this occurs, the prosecution may dismiss the case but subsequently file charges based on other evidence or continue with the prosecution if there is additional incriminating evidence that is likely to lead to a successful prosecution (How a motion).
4. Shawn Beaver
Aug 24, 2023 at 6:40 PM
SLIDE 1 (Introduction)
Hello class,
Today we will be talking a little bit about the Fourth Amendment, warrants, the exceptions of warrants, and what happens to a defendant when a motion is granted to suppress.
SLIDE 2 (Fourth Amendment Purpose)
Beginning in the early 1900s, the Supreme Court began expanding the applications of the Fourth Amendment. James Madison revised his initial draft of the Fourth Amendment and included that people will be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. In short, police must have probable cause to obtain a warrant, and execute a search.
SLIDE 3 (Landmark)
There are many cases that helped cement our Fourth Amendment rights. One of these cases being Mapp v. Ohio. During Mapp v. Ohio, Mapp had her house searched without warrant, and obscene material was found and used against her. Ohio’s high court concluded that while the evidence was possessed illegally, it would still be allowed as evidence. After the case was appealed to the US supreme court, it was agreed that the exclusionary rule should be applied to the states, and the evidence could not be used against her. This decision extended the rule to state courts and significantly strengthened our Fourth Amendment rights.
SLIDE 4 (Search Warrants)
As stated earlier, probable cause is required to obtain a warrant. In order to obtain this warrant, an officer must convince a judge that criminal activity has taken place, or is about to take place. The officer must present its request in the form of written affidavits which MUST include probable cause before conducting the search. Search warrants are crucial to the lawful obtaining of evidence. However, this does not mean there are exceptions to the warrant.
SLIDE 5 (Exceptions to the Warrant)
There are certain times when searches do not require warrants. For example, if an individual is arrested on probable cause, then the police officer is allowed to conduct a warrantless search to inspect for weapons or preserve any evidence. The officer’s safety and gathering of evidence is reasonable. Another example includes if an officer is conducting a legal search, and identifies stolen or illegal items in their plain view. Lastly, Automobile searches. Automobiles do not offer the same level of privacy rights as an individual’s home or own person. They can be used to transport evidence, which deems warrantless searches as reasonable.
SLIDE 6 (Motion Granted)
If evidence was seized without a search warrant, there is a possibility that it could be excluded from the case. The exclusionary rule was adopted after Weeks v. United States, when evidence was seized illegally, and is used as an incentive for overzealous law enforcement officers. If evidence was deemed as illegally seized, then the evidence would not be held against you in trial. Since the exclusionary rule has been in effect, investigations have become more professional, and people’s rights have been given stronger protections.
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
