Name

Professor

Course

Probable Cause v. Reasonable Suspicion

This training is meant to help all of the trainers of the constitutional issues.

some terms found in the fourth amendment of the US constitution which deal with the protection of the citizens and those suspected of the criminal activities from the unlawful arrests from the police officers.

The amendments protect suspects and citizens from searches from the same officer.

Introduction

This originates from a number of circumstances in which an officer may want to conduct a search on the suspect's premises, make arrests and moreover seize some items.

police officers can conduct these searches where necessary so as to ensure that their safety and the safety of the public is guaranteed.

During emergencies, police may need to carry out a search.

However, if there is not consent given regarding the probable cause, then a search is very crucial to be done at that point.

Search and Seizure

Cont.Some circumstances dictate that a person is

charged with a space such as a roommate or a spouse and can give permission for the house to be searched. Generally, there are some circumstances in which police officers may be forced to search one's possessions without a warrant or probable cause.

If one is subject to warrantless search, then it is very crucial to recall the details of the situations leading to the search.

Fourth amendment bill like the bill of rights was originally applied at the federal courts.

In the case regarding the Wolf Versus Colorado in 1949, the Supreme Court decided that the rights that are guaranteed by the fourth amendment be applied equally by the state courts.

It seeks to guarantee the citizens that they have rights to be protected by laws equally.

This process was referred as the doctrine of incorporation

Who the Fourth Amendment regulates

Cont.This fourth amendment mainly concerns with

protecting the citizens against searches and seizures which are directed by the government.

These involved the surveillance and investigatory actions that are carried out strictly on private persons.

This might include investigations of one's spouse, nosey neighbors or even private investigators.

Cont.The Fourth Amendment do not indulge itself in

fighting against the government actions, not unless the defendants have reasonable expectations

The Supreme Court stated that a person who coherently exposes to the public is not part of the fourth amendment objectives.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that the individuals should maintain a reasonable expectation of treatment of privacy in their bodies and even in their personal belongings.

For personal properties that are held on the public, there is no privacy maintained.

For items that may be lying in someone's backseat or growing in someone's outdoor, it cannot be attributed the privacy claims since it also falls in this category.

However, for some items that is only visible trough enhanced surveillance such as the telescopic lenses that are highly powered are subject to the stipulations of the fourth amendment.

For items such as the public records and published phone numbers that are readily accessible to the general public do not attract privacy subjection.

The Supreme Court went ahead and stipulated that, for matters of personal characteristics do not attract such rights since it is visible to general public (Taslitz 2010).

On the face of warrant clause and reasonableness clause, it has appeared to be clearly recorded in the constitution.

It stipulates that a warrant ought to be supported by a probable clause in which the officer seeking the warrant swears the truth of the facts in using his facts to support the application made.

The Supreme Court stipulated that the warrantless police officers who may comply with the amendments as stated in the fourth amendment as long as it is reasonable under such circumstances are allowable.

However, the amendment warrants the requirement to reflect the reluctance of the court in duly impeding the job regarding the law enforcement officials.

Reasonableness clause and the warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment

Reasonable Suspicion is a presumption that claims that crime has been committed.

On the other hand, probable cause is a logical belief which is supported by facts that actually a crime was committed.

This indicates that a crime was committed and thus an investigation should be carried out to confirm the same.

Probable cause and of reasonable suspicion

The Probable cause and the reasonable suspicion dictate that the police searching and seizing someone's items will need to justify such acts in conformity to the fourth amendment.

There are exceptions that justification should be presented in two forms: the police ought to have probable cause they must also have reasonable suspicion.

The justification of the probable cause as stipulated by the Supreme Court is that the officer should apply probable cause when the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of reasonable trustworthy information that is moreover sufficient to warrant for a man's probable actions.

Current state of the law on probable cause and reasonable suspicion

To depict the decision-making process in probable cause and reasonable suspicion, a case example of Cost Versus Commonwealth in which a police officer is patrolling and looking for people who were parked yet not residents of the property.

Cost, when asked a question by the officer, did not answer the officer and resisted what he was told to do. As a result, the officer was forced to remove cost from the car. Cost refused to be searched.

After patting him, he felt some bulges believed to be capsules based on their narcotics training. When told to remove what was in the pocket, cost removed plastic baggies containing heroine capsules.

The court ruled that the officer did not have a probable cause to think that the suspect had heroine’s capsules.

Decision-making process.

The stop and frisk raises a very serious concern with regards to the racial profiling and illegal stops regarding the privacy rights.

The department of the New York Police Department (NYPD) confirms the contents pedestrians.

They do this by searching randomly on the people arrested.

Current state of the law in stop-and-frisk

Violating the fourth amendment results in the exclusionary rule.

For instance, when an officer is prosecuted for being overzealous law enforcers, that it is extremely rare.

A police officer making illegal search and seizure will be also subjected to departmental discipline.

Consequences to law enforcement for violating the Fourth Amendment

Ackerman, G. (2011). Law and courts: Current perspectives from InfoTrac. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Barton, R. R. (2015). Texas search and seizure. Bloom, R. M. (2013). Searches, seizures, and warrants: A reference guide to

the United States Constitution. Westport, Conn: Praeger. La, V. N. G., Lachman, P., Rao, S., Matthews, A., Urban Institute,, & COPS

Program (U.S.),. (2014). Stop and Frisk: Balancing Crime Control with Community Relations.

Maclin, T. (2013). The Supreme Court and the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Saltzburg, S. A., & Capra, D. J. (2014). American criminal procedure: Cases and commentary. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West.

Schulhofer, S. J. (2012). More essential than ever: The Fourth Amendment in the twenty-first century. New York: Oxford University Press.

Taslitz, A. E. (2010). Reconstructing the Fourth Amendment: A history of search and seizure, 1789-1868. New York: New York University Press.

Turvey, B. E., & Cooley, C. M. (2014). Miscarriages of Justice: Actual Innocence, Forensic Evidence, and the Law. Burlington: Elsevier Science.

References