250 words minimum / APA format.

Here is the first student to respond to:

Carlos:

Probable
cause to arrest an individual need to be established through factual
evidence (When is an Arrest a Legal Arrest?) and not just an assumption
of a crime committed by the individual in questioning. So, this means
that the arresting officer needs to either observe specific patters,
have information from witnesses and or victims. The police officer may
even be able to use the knowledge they have gained from previous arrest
where they can recognize gang signs or criminal activities. After an
officer has probable cause he or she will then submit an affidavit to a
judge to grant an arrest or search warrant. The judge will look to see
if the police officer has a good tract record on knowledge of a crime,
if victims or witnessed are established or even just information given
that can be verified my police of a crime. So, while it seems like there
needs to be a lot met to secure warrant if an officer has good intel on
crime it could be just that simple.

The exclusionary rule is a
law that prohibits evidence to be used in a criminal trial if it was
obtained illegally and is in violation of a person’s forth amendment
(The Fourth Amendment and the ‘Exclusionary Rule). While this rule is
here to essentially protect the people it also assures law enforcement
is doing things correctly for all valuable evidence can be used.
However, there are a few exceptions to the exclusionary rule and one of
the main exceptions is the good faith exception. “This applies to
officers who had a reasonable, good-faith belief that they were acting
according to legal authority, such as by relying on a search warrant
that is later found to have been legally defective” (Shein, 2017).
Another common exception is the independent source doctrine, often
evidence is discovered during an illegal search but the same evidence is
also found later legally. So, in short, the evidence was going to be
discovered regardless.

A stop and frisk is when you are temporary
stopped and patted down by law enforcement over your clothing to see if
you are carrying a weapon and an arrest is when you are actually taken
down to a station and booked for a crime. However, a stop and frisk can
turn into an arrest if a police officer finds evidence. But if nothing
is found you just simply walk away. For a stop and frisk to be
considered legal, the police officer must have a reasonable suspicion
like we touched bases above that a crime has been or will be committed.
The police officer also needs to have a great suspicion that the person
being stopped has a dangerous weapon. So, like stated above about
reasonable cause, they could have seen them go into a store that sells
weapons, or have a witness tell them they are carrying one.

References

Shein, M. (2017, February 22). The Exclusionary Rule Exceptions. Retrieved from https://federalcriminallawcenter.com/2017/02/exclu…

The Fourth Amendment and the ‘Exclusionary Rule. (n.d.). Retrieved from FindLaw: https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/the-f…

When is an Arrest a Legal Arrest? (n.d.). Retrieved from FindLaw: https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/when-…

Dario:

Good Evening Professor and classmates,

The
authors of the U.S. Constitution were on a mission to stop past abuses
committed by British Troops on American citizens. In doing so, they
ensured to include articles in the U.S. Constitution that prohibited
authorities from entering a private dwelling without permission from the
owner or without probable cause in the execution of a lawful warrant.
Probable cause was required for authorities to obtain a warrant.
Similarly, a police officer must have probable cause to arrest an
individual. An arrest cannot be pursued on mere intuition. Probable
cause is more than mere suspicion. To obtain a warrant, a police office
would need to present to a judge enough information that points to the
suspect in question; however, that information does not need to say that
the suspect is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (Probable Cause, n.d.).

Exclusionary
rule states that any illegal search, seizures, arrest, and confessions
that violates the U.S. Constitution cannot be considered as evidence.
However, there are exceptions to certain evidence discovered by
authorities that can be used in court, regardless if a search warrant or
probable cause was obtained. The exceptions are Good Faith exception,
which means if an officer under good faith conducting a lawful search or
warrant discovers illegal items in a person, car, or building, that
illegal items can be used as evidence to convict a person. Independent
Source Doctrine states that evidence initially discovered during an
unlawful search can be used as evidence if later that evidence is
obtained independently through activities untainted by the illegal
search. Inevitable Discovery Doctrine is similar to Independent Source
Doctrine in that an that evidence obtained in an unlawful search had the
potential to be discovered anyway.

In the line of duty an
officer has the mandate to stop question residents if he suspects that a
crime is imminent. In doing so, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Terry
V. Ohio (n.d.) that a police officer is right in stopping residents and
frisking them if suspect that a crime has been, is, or is about to be
committed. Also, the police officer must suspect that the suspect is
carrying a dangerous weapon for the stop and frisk to be legal. On the
other hand, an arrest is taking custody of a suspect where the suspect
is not free to leave. The requirements for an officer to conduct a “stop
and frisk” is reasonable suspicion that a suspect is armed and
dangerous.

Dario

References

Probable Cause. (n.d.). Retrieved Jan 14, 2020, from Cornell Law School: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause

Terry v. Ohio. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved January 14, 2020, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brandon:

he
most popular term amongst law enforcement and civilians is probable
cause. Probable cause is the grounds the courts and law enforcement use
to arrest a person suspected of a crime. If there is no probable cause
then there should be no arrest or citation to bring the individual to
the magistrate. There are four elements for search warrant laid out by
the Supreme Court. First is the warrant must be filled in good faith by a
certified police officer. Second, the warrant/arrest must be filed on
reliable information setting the grounds for probable cause to search
under the Fourth Amendment. Third, the warrant can only be issued by a
magistrate/judge who is a neutral person in the criminal justice system.
Last, the warrant has to be very specific explaining what is to be
searched, where and the items law enforcement will be searching and
confiscating for evidence.

The exclusionary rule protects citizens
from the evidence being obtained illegally and unconstitutionally from
law enforcement or other government officials who have police powers
federally and local. An officer cannot obtain evidence without a warrant
for the purpose of making an arrest and using it in court contrary to
the exceptions to the exclusionary rule. If the evidence is obtained
without just a warrant it will be inadmissible in court against the
accused which will result in a non-conviction even if the evidence
directs to guilt.

There are a few exceptions to the exclusionary
rule. Here are the primary exceptions pertaining to the rule. The Good
Faith Exception which states a police officer is operating in good faith
that the warrant is believed to be valid to be admitted in conviction
to the courts. Attenuation Doctrine is an exception granting evidence
illegally confiscated to be admitted in court if there is a connection
between the evidence and the illegal means which it was obtained is very
remote (Legal Dictionary 2016). Independent Source Doctrine is another
exception where the “illegal obtaining of evidence is to be admitted to
the court if the evidence was later obtained by an independent person
through legal means”. Last is Inevitable Discovery Rule which is the
last exception “permitting improperly obtained evidence to admit when it
is apparent that the evidence would have eventually be discovered
through legal means (Legal Dictionary 2016).

Stop and frisk is a
term police officers and the courts use for officer safety. A police
officer can stop and frisk a person if they are suspicious of the sole
purpose of looking for a weapon the person may have. This is not to be
confused with a search. The stop and frisk process is only granted to
the outer garments of a person’s clothes in revealing a weapon that
could cause serious bodily harm or death to the officer. If the officer
pats down the outer layer of clothes and what he/she believes to be the
shape of a firearm or a knife they can confiscate it until the officer
is ready to release the person from detainment. Police are permitted to
then go into the layer and only layer of clothing where they believe the
firearm or knife is located from their pat down to retrieve the weapon.

An
arrest by police is when they have already established probable cause
of the crime and now can search the person who was arrested for any
weapons, contraband or narcotics. The stop and frisk is the preliminary
stage of an arrest if it goes to an arrest. Some people may be stopped
and frisked but not arrested without violating the Fourth Amendment. The
officer can justify his//her actions for a stop and frisk and no arrest
based on officer safety. “I was suspicious of the person your honor and
wanted to ensure there were no weapons while I conducted my
investigation”.

Reference

Team, Content. “Exclusionary Rule – Definition, Process, Examples and Cases.” Legal Dictionary, 30 June 2016, https://legaldictionary.net/exclusionary-rule/.

Part 2:

Dario:

Good Evening Professor and Classmates,

Police
officers who responded to the scene did have probable cause to arrest
Mr. Mayo. Probable cause to arrest Mr. Mayo was fulfilled when Mr. Mayo
admitted that he shot Mr. Scowen. Whether Mr. Mayo was guilty or not of
killing Mr. Scowen, that was of no concern to the police officers who
affected the arrest. There was enough evidence, including Mr. Mayo’s own
admission that he had committed homicide under the books. Whether he
was guilty or not, that was up to the courts to decide, not the police
officers.

Once under arrest, Mr. Mayo was entitled to
Constitutional rights which in this case, I believe those rights were
violated. Mr. Mayo was not read his Miranda Rights which is the first
step in the due process for any suspect that enters the criminal justice
system of the United States.

Police were required to read Mr.
Mayo his Miranda rights because he was under the custody of the state.
Under custody, police officers could potentially ask incriminating
questions that Mr. Mayo could answer that could most likely be used
against him in a criminal trial (Miranda Warnings and Police
Questioning, n.d.)

Dario

References

Miranda Warnings and Police Questioning. (n.d.). Retrieved Jan 14, 2020, from Findlaw.com: https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/miran…

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Taelor:

Probable
cause was evident for law enforcement personnel to arrest Mayo due to a
weapon being present. The weapon was also the firearm that was used to
kill the victim. Law enforcement failed by not reading Mayo his rights
upon arresting him. Mayo’s constitutional rights were violated due to
the Miranda rights not being read to him. Miranda warnings are
procedural safeguards for custodial interrogation that protect the
interests of both the prosecution and the suspects (Lieser, Van Der
Voort & Spaulding, 2019). When Miranda rights are not read it gives
the alleged suspect the privilege to not talk about the situation that
occurred. Any charges in relation to this suspect being charged with
murder can be dismissed. Miranda failure is a mistake that many officers
make and are held accountable for because this leads to an overturn in
the result of a crime that took place. Police must read Miranda rights
upon arrests so they can be able to use anything that is said during the
duration of the arrest as evidence towards the guilt of the suspect.
Being that Mayo was not read his Miranda rights, anything he said can
not be used as evidence in regard to his trial. When officers fail to
read Miranda rights, they often result in being remorseful.

References

Lieser,
A., Van Der Voort, D., & Spaulding, T. (2019). You have the right
to remain silent: The ability of adolescents with developmental language
disorder to understand their legal rights. Journal of Communication Disorders, 82, 105920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2019.105920

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Cole:

Did the police have probable cause to arrest Mayo?

The legal standard for probable cause to arrest exists when there are
facts and circumstances sufficient to stand for themselves which will
lead an officer to believe a crime has been committed by a specific
person. Probable cause to search will arise when there are reasonable
grounds to believe specific items are located on a specific property and
they are evidence of a crime (Bandiero, 2019). In this scenario, Scott
Mayo (bartender) and Basil Scowen (patron) got into an argument about
$1500. During the argument, Scowen picked up a beer bottle
threateningly. Mayo claims Scowen said “I am going to kill you” and he
felt he was in imminent danger. Mayo grabbed his pistol and killed
Scowen. Officer arrested Mayo but never read him his Miranda Rights.
Witnesses for the prosecution include statements made by Mayo, a bar
customer. Witnesses for the defense are Mayo and an individual outside
the bar.

As mentioned before, probable cause requires facts and
circumstances to stand for themselves. The facts of the case show there
was a homicide as Mayo did kill Scowen with a firearm. However, the
initial facts provided in the case make it difficult to determine if
Mayo’s actions were self-defense or not. Based on the legal standard for
probable cause, I do not believe there would be sufficient probable
cause to arrest Mayo right away for specific charges. More resources
would need to be called in such as a detective to take over interviews
and crime scene analysis. Once the investigation was complete, then a
final determination of charges could be made or not. Since Mayo was
arrested, I would assume the officer had a very small amount of probable
cause (Mayo + weapon + dead Scowen). However, I don’t think the case
would go much further unless more investigation is done.

2) Did law enforcement violate Mayo’s constitutional rights? If yes, explain how. If not, explain why.

In this scenario, a police officer came to the scene and took Mayo’s
statements. At this time Miranda was not required because officers are
able to get the initial facts to determine if a crime has occurred.
Based on the information provided, Mayo’s constitutional rights were not
violated. Let’s look at the issue of arrest. A valid arrest must be
based upon probable cause to believe a crime has occurred and a specific
person has committed the crime. The issue with probable cause is you
either have it or you don’t. There is no gray area and an officer cannot
arrest someone to in order to investigate the crime further. When a
suspect is arrested for a crime, they are arrested because probable
cause exists. The prosecution would then decide if charges are to be
filed. Even if there is probable cause to arrest an individual, it is
perfectly okay to delay the making of a formal arrest until more
information is available. There is no requirement that an arrest be made
once probable cause develops (Colorado Peace Officers Handbook, 2019). A
false arrest would not have been made in this instance because the
police did not act without authority or beyond the scope of their
powers. In this case, the police have the authority to arrest those they
reasonably suspect of having committed a crime. As
mentioned before, there is very limited probable cause to arrest Mayo
and further information should have been seeked.

3) Were the police required to read Mayo his Miranda rights? Discuss why

Specific situations will require Miranda Rights. In this case, the
police have no obligation to read Mayo his Miranda Rights. Two
requirements must be met before an officer is required to tell a suspect
their Miranda Rights. A suspect must be in custody and interrogation
must be imminent. An officer does not have to formally tell a person
they are under arrest to be considered in-custody. The courts look at
whether an objectively reasonable person would believe they were under
arrest or free to leave based on the totality of the circumstances.
Miranda is only required if the officer is seeking testimony to prove or
disprove the crime in question. Miranda is not required for information
unrelated to the crime (Bandiero, 2019). Mayo’s initial statements and
his statements if they were made after the arrest could
be suppressed under the right circumstances. If the police kept asking
questions once they developed probable cause to suspect Mayo of a crime,
then yes, the statements could be suppressed. However, Mayo’s initial
statements describing what happened would not require Miranda.

References

Bandiero, A. (2019). Search & seizure survival guide: a field guide for law enforcement. Spokane, WA: Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training, LLC.

Colorado Peace Officers Handbook (33rd ed.). (2019). LexisNexis.