The Rules of Law Enforcement
Assignment: The Rules of Law Enforcement
In the first case the police conducted a lawful search of the suspect. They searched the suspect prior to arrest, since the arrest was based on probable cause. This search was valid because it was incidental to the arrest. In the second case, the police officers conducted a search that required a warrant. In this case, the officers only had an arrest warrant. The fact that the officers gained entry to the house through a 14 year old child was wrong, since they had no right to enter the residence in the first place. The drugs that were seized were seized illegally. The officers had no warrant to search the premises or to seize any evidence. Since the evidence was not seized in “plain view” it will not be admissible in court. Therefore the search was not conducted lawfully.
In the first case the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The police had probable cause to arrest the suspect because he was acting weird and fit part the description of the suspect spotted in the previous crimes. Since the police were arresting the individual, they are able to search the suspect prior to arrest. The search was reasonable and had probable cause. In second case the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. According to the Fourth Amendment the police must have a warrant and probable cause to search a person’s home or property. The property and evidence was seized illegally, in this case the search was not reasonable and there was no real probable cause the search was based on the statement of another suspect.
In the first case the arrest was conducted properly the suspect was searched incidental to arrest, read his rights, and brought to the station. In the second case the suspect was arrested for the items seized illegally. There was no mention of Miranda rights being read to this suspect. Therefore the arrest was not done properly.
The reading of the Miranda rights to the first suspect was done correctly.
In the first case the police conducted a lawful search of the suspect. They searched the suspect prior to arrest, since the arrest was based on probable cause. This search was valid because it was incidental to the arrest. In the second case, the police officers conducted a search that required a warrant. In this case, the officers only had an arrest warrant. The fact that the officers gained entry to the house through a 14 year old child was wrong, since they had no right to enter the residence in the first place. The drugs that were seized were seized illegally. The officers had no warrant to search the premises or to seize any evidence. Since the evidence was not seized in “plain view” it will not be admissible in court. Therefore the search was not conducted lawfully.
In the first case the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The police had probable cause to arrest the suspect because he was acting weird and fit part the description of the suspect spotted in the previous crimes. Since the police were arresting the individual, they are able to search the suspect prior to arrest. The search was reasonable and had probable cause. In second case the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. According to the Fourth Amendment the police must have a warrant and probable cause to search a person’s home or property. The property and evidence was seized illegally, in this case the search was not reasonable and there was no real probable cause the search was based on the statement of another suspect.
In the first case the arrest was conducted properly the suspect was searched incidental to arrest, read his rights, and brought to the station. In the second case the suspect was arrested for the items seized illegally. There was no mention of Miranda rights being read to this suspect. Therefore the arrest was not done properly.
The reading of the Miranda rights to the first suspect was done correctly.