Criminal Procedure and the Police - Assignment Example

Law Questions Law questions Q1. The issue is that the people officers were called to respond to an accident and not an investigation into Fred’s life. Did the circumstances and facts provide the police officers a probable or credible cause to consider that Fred had or was going to commit a felony? Can probable cause rely on tips? In addition, the police officers did not have the right to search Fred’s possession because they lacked a valid search warrant from the court. . The “Due Process Clause” had been disobeyed when police officers coerced Fred to take breadth test. The police officers in this matter are supposed to respond to the accident not start searching Fred’s house. On realization that Fred had a criminal record, the police officers should obtain a search warrant to search Fred’s room and before Fred is charged with possession of cocaine. The rule of law demands that plausible cause exists if the circumstances and facts of the case would cause a person to believe and consider that a felony had been committed or was going to be committed (Hess & Orthmann, 2012). Q2. Yes, the drugs are admissible in Court against Mike because the report evaluation of the controlled substances such as Marijuana that was found in Mike house is admissible in the court because it acts as a prima facie evidence of the quantity, nature, and identity of the issue evaluated. In this case, the police officers do not require the utilization of laboratory tests or reports because Mike and Larry were found in possession of the drugs. Admissibility will also apply to Larry because he was found in possession of Marijuana in his trunk. The police officers had the right to search Mike’s house since they had a valid search warrant (Carmen, 2009). Q3. Police officers were investigating a car crime had particular details regarding the car that had committed the crime. When the details matched with the defendant’s behaviors, police discovered the car had similar characteristics as the one they had. The police had the right to use the information they had and match it with what they saw. The police officers need to use the totality of circumstances method to get a credible or probable cause. The fourth amendment demands that no more than a discovery by an issuing judge or magistrate that there is concrete evidence that if a search is conducted, it will find evidence of criminal activity. The evidence will be admissible because the search warrant was based on reasonable anonymous tip in the absence of indicia of the knowledge of the informer. The message in the tip is matched with the police discoveries and used as evidence in the court (Lee, 2010). Q4. The Police officers got an anonymous tip about the activities that were happening in house 401S. Therefore, police officer acting anonymous tip and after three days surveillance of the activities in the house, proved that the house was dealing in crack cocaine business. Naked survey of the house was a violation of the fourth amendment that prohibits unreasonable search and seizures. In addition, the right to privacy was infringed and that the police had no right to stop and frisk Smith because they lacked a valid search warrant from the court. Q5. According to the fourth amendment, no individual rights is violated if a person is arrested driving without a seatbelt. In this case, such arrest for misdemeanor that carries a fine of $ 100 does not warrant or authorize the law enforcement agents an unreasonable search and seizure as stipulated in the fourth amendment. The police officers had the right to fine Banks and Jones for driving without a seatbelt but they violated their personal rights for searching their car without a valid search warrant. What made the police officers to suspect Banks and Jones is that they were suspicious when they were stopped which implied that had engaged in illegal conduct or they were carrying illegal substance. The police officer took Banks driving license, which was valid, this meant that Banks would not be judged for driving without a license. The police conduct at the scene was unconstitutional because the constitution demands that the arrested person might access the vehicle during the time of search and that the arrested person’s car has evidence of the offense that resulted to the arrest. Therefore, in this matter, when an individual is arrested for violation of traffic laws, there will be no rational or reasonable grounds to believe the vehicle contains sufficient evidence (Bloom & Brodin, 2009). Q6. When the DEA agents got the information about the case of Perez in a laundering operation in relation with a key narcotic ring, they placed him under surveillance so that they could track his moves. The caller had suspected that Perez was a drug trafficker, basing on the way he collected money from different locations in the city. What made the suspicions even worse were his techniques of interchanging the laundry bags, and on several occasions dropping the bag when full and coming back without it. On the third surveillance, he becomes nervous as he peeps out of the rear window. When his cab is checked, ten pounds of marijuana and $13, 000 cash are found but Perez claims it belongs to a friend. These information presents suspicion that Perez may be a drug trafficker. Federal criminal charges will be imposed on Perez, under the Federal Drug Trafficking Indictment Act. The rule will be that Perez be charged with a count of conspiracy for selling and distributing marijuana. He will face an obligatory ten-year imprisonment, and a fine of 10, 000,000. In addition, if Perez has been convicted of an earlier drug felony, he would be subject to a compulsory minimum 20-years life imprisonment and a fine of 20.000,000 (Acker & Brody, 2011). Q7. The police, having a warrant to arrest Terry for murder allegations, closely follow the suspect, and he surrenders peacefully. However, the search warrant misses, but there is a sawed-off shotgun, a weapon to proof the murder. There is also a passport, a disguise, and a plane ticket to Argentina to show that there is present evidence that Terry was hiding something, and that he was ready to leave the country for security purposes. From this scenario, there is permissible evidence against Terry. According to the law, if possible cause occurs, such as attempts of running away, sounds of gunshots, or movements by the suspect, a search becomes legal with no warrant (Carey & Kusnet, 1999). This is a related case to Terry because the sawed-off gunshot, the disguise, and the passport are enough evidence to arrest him without a warrant. Q8. When Jay is asked to talk, he insists of talking to his father first. He only agrees to talk when he is informed of his Miranda rights, to be assured that his admissibility will be preserved (Roberts & Muraskin, 2002). His statement, “I guess so, if it’s like you say it shouldn’t be so bad” brings about suspicion on whether his dad might be involved in the murder. He wants to be sure that he will be protected by the rights if he attempts to confess. The pond belongs to his dad, who is a prominent attorney, and thus he must be familiar with the law surrounding murder. That might be the reason why the body and the weapon were hidden under the pond. Given that the police have been issued with a search warrant, they are admissible to search the pond since they already videotaped the statement to show evidence of the murder from Jay. Q9. The suspect in this case has to face two charges; one concerning Controlled Substance Distribution and the murder of the informant. Bart’s request for the police not to inquire about issues surrounding the drug offense is questionable. Suspicion that the suspect had something to do with the informant’s disappearance is affirmed with the suspect’s statement. By stating, “wont be seen or heard from again if you know what I mean" the suspect gives evidence of murder to the officer in the cell block; he means that the informant was killed. However, he fears that his wife might betray him, if she was to be asked to give evidence. From the search in the wife’s dwelling, a sawed-off shotgun and a slip showing the suspect had a storage shed give enough evidence that the suspect distributed drugs and that he must have shot someone. The blood in the car and the clothing are further proofs to the murder. On approaching the suspect, he cannot deny any allegations bearing in mind that there was full evidence from everything connected to his actions and he thus confesses to the murder. This means that the suspect is guilty and what is left is the court’s ruling. Q10. Shansky’s statements to Caring and Hardy are admissible in the homicide trial. This is for the reason that, Shansky was a key suspect in the murder of his wife, yet there was no strong evidence to file charges against him. The only way this would be possible was to trick him into confessing the murder. Moreover, confessions are always allowed admissible, so long as the suspect is not forced into doing it (Thomas & Leo, 2012). It is also for the reason that such information is trustworthy, since the suspect confesses unconsciously, and that the harmonious surrounding used by Caring would make Shanky to give all information without fear of being caught up in the whole process. The process therefore was a precise technique of obtaining first hand information and strong evidence without denying Shansky his Miranda rights. References Acker, J & Brody, C. (2011). Criminal Procedure 3E: A Contemporary Perspective. New York, NY: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Bloom, R & Brodin, M. (2009). Criminal procedure and the police: Examples and explanations. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers. Carey, D & Kusnet,J. (1999). Criminal Law Digest: Federal and constitutional law and procedure. London: Warren, Gorham & Lamont. Carmen, R. (2009). Criminal procedure: Law practice, 8th Ed. New York, NY: Wardsworth Publishing. Hess, K & Orthmann, C. (2012). Criminal investigation. New Jersey: Delmar Cengage Learning. Lee, C. (2010). Searches and seizures: The fourth amendment, its constitutional history and contemporary debates. Boston, MA: Prometheus Books. Roberts, A, & Muraskin, R. (2002). Visions for change: crime and justice in the twenty-first century. New York. NY: Prentice Hall. Thomas, G, & Leo R. (2012). Confessions of Guilt: From Torture to Miranda and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More