\ufeffRunning Head: Fourth Amendments’ Arrests and Stops\u00a0<\/p>\n
Fourth Amendments’ Arrests and Stops<\/p>\n
Name<\/p>\n
Course<\/p>\n
Tutor<\/p>\n
Date<\/p>\n
Introduction <\/p>\n
The 4th Amendment forms the legal basis for determining how, when and where searches and seizures should be carried out by the authorities. Under the Arrests and Stops, the police officers are required to obtain warrants where necessary, though non court sanctioned arrests may be made under reasonable suspicion. Any of process of search and arrest should thus by guide by probable cause as well as limitation to the extent to which a search can be carried out. These stipulations can be illustrated by looking at such cases as United States v. Watson, Chimel v. California, and Terry v. Ohio.<\/p>\n
United States v. Watson <\/p>\n
Citation <\/p>\n
United States v. Watson, Supreme Court of United States (1976)<\/p>\n
The facts<\/p>\n
Material facts <\/p>\n
In the case, a postal inspector was tipped by an informant on how to get the person who stole cards. Upon alerting the inspector, the two colluded to have the informant meet the defendant at a restaurant and signal the officer upon confirming that the case was indeed true. Based on the signal, the defendant, Watson, was arrested and his car searched, after which two cards were recovered from his car. <\/p>\n
Legal facts <\/p>\n
In the case, the court was to determine the legality of the arrest<\/p>\n
The holding<\/p>\n
The court\u2019s ruling affirmed the officer\u2019s action. As such, the arrest was deemed legal and within the law. <\/p>\n
Legal rationale<\/p>\n
The legal argument of the court was that in such a case, the officer relied on the provisions and principles of probable cause. Based on the stipulations of common law and the laws of the US, a postal officer or equivalent is entitled to carry out arrest in case of a felony. Such an arrest can be made if the officer witnessed the felon carry out the illegal act or if he can reasonable belief that a felony has been committed by the accused. <\/p>\n
Conclusion <\/p>\n
The outcome of the case calls for a broad based view of such cases and the roles of peace officers with respect to enforcement of laws. <\/p>\n
Chimel v. California<\/p>\n
Citation <\/p>\n
Chimel v. California, U.S. Supreme Court; 395 U.S. 752 (1969) <\/p>\n
The facts<\/p>\n
Material facts <\/p>\n
Based on an arrest warrant, officers went to Chimel\u2019s house to execute the order. As a burglary suspect, the police went ahead and searched the house to check if he had stolen materials. In the process, a number of items were obtained in the house and late used as court exhibits. In the process, the accused was convicted.<\/p>\n
Legal facts <\/p>\n
The legal issue was to deduce the legality of the officers\u2019 search given that they only had an arrest warrant. <\/p>\n
The holding<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court held that the search was unconstitutional under the 4th amendment. <\/p>\n
Legal rationale<\/p>\n
Basing its opinion on the principle of \u2018incident to arrest\u2019, the court argued that the search act was not reasonable. The law requires that application of the principle be within an area within control of the accused. Specifically, the police are not allowed to carry out a comprehensive search as they did without proper \/ legal authority. A search warrant could have therefore been sought by the police together with the arrest warrant. <\/p>\n
Conclusion <\/p>\n
In the case, it is evident that an arrest warrant does not entitle the police to carry out a house search. This would entail abuse of police authority and the legal instrument given by the court <\/p>\n
Terry v. Ohio<\/p>\n
Citation <\/p>\n
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)<\/p>\n
The facts<\/p>\n
Material facts<\/p>\n
In Terry v. Ohio, a police officer observed two men behaving strangely as they inspecting or surveying a store and conferring with each other. The suspects could peep into a store\u2019s window alternatively and talk to each other before being joined by another who would disappear speedily after a brief exchange. The officer then confronted the men and when he enquired about their identities, one only mumbled, promoting the officer to search them. In the process, a pistol was discovered from them and they were arrested. <\/p>\n
Legal facts <\/p>\n
In the case, the court was to determine the legality of the use of the recovered weapon as court evidence. In line with the 4th amendment, the court was to establish whether or not the police acted reasonably within the law. In determination if the legal facts that arose relate to whether probable cause and search principles were legally applied in the process of arrest. <\/p>\n
The holding<\/p>\n
The court held that the officer acted within the law and the very spirit of the 4th amendment. <\/p>\n
Legal rationale<\/p>\n
This is because he carried out limited search on the suspect. Though probable cause may be absent in certain situations, an officer can actually carry out search if in his reasoning the suspect might be having dangerous weapons that may be used to assault him or her or the public. <\/p>\n
Conclusion <\/p>\n
The case outlines the need for the police officers to avoid unnecessary risks in the course of their duty\/duties. As such, one should be reasonable when he observes a strange act and instigate a follow up. When such a situation arises there is need for the officers to be on the look out for a possible criminal act while at the same time taking care not to risk their lives and public safety by searching the suspects of any dangerous weapons.<\/p>\n
Application of Fourth Amendment <\/p>\n
In the United States vs. Watson, the Supreme Court relied on the provisions of the 4th amendment to determine the case. Based on the amendment, the lower courts decision was reversed for narrow and restrictive interpretation of the 4th amendment. <\/p>\n
The 4th amendment as envisioned in the disposition of the cases can be described as one of the best legal instruments that promotes adherence to the rule of law and respect of human rights. For example, the case of Chimel v. California emphasizes need for respect for individual right to privacy and protection by the law. The architects of the amendment must have been driven by the need to refine the laws so that \u2018an incident to arrest\u2019 may not be abused by the police. As such, the role of warrants and need to differentiate between a search and an arrest warrant come into play. The amendment, also emphasizes the significance of probable cause and incident of arrest so that the police do not use excessive force or abuse their powers in the process of law enforcement. In United States v. Watson , the officer\u2019s decision to search the car did not arise as a result of an illegal arrest . As such, the court argued that under reasonable situation and existence of reasonable degree of suspicion, it is not mandatory that an arrest warrant be obtained first before an officer can act. Conversely, a warrant less arrest can be executed and the conviction of such a crime by let to stand in court of law. In Terry v. Ohio, the probable cause and reasonable suspicion issues clearly come out. It is evident that a police is justified to carry out a search on an individual even without a warrant as the suspect may be armed and in the process harm him or her. As such the principle of probable cause does not apply in this case. However the nature of the officer\u2019s action must be guided by reasonable suspicion that is devoid of malice. For example, by continuously peeping through the window and coffering, the police had a reasonable ground for suspicion of the intention of the men on the street. At the same time, the search needs to be carefully applied with limit. As such reasonable suspicion gives ground for frisking by a police officer. <\/p>\n
In conclusion, United States v. Watson, Chimel v. California, and Terry v. Ohio cases point out the fact that human right need to be observed at al times so that the requirements of the 4th amendment are legally taken into account. As such, the officers need to carry out limited search if they are convinced that probable cause exists. However, the absence of the same as well as a warrant , under reasonable suspicion can prompt a stop and frisk or limited search situation. <\/p>\n
References<\/p>\n
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) Retrieved July 20, 2010, from <\/p>\n
http:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/us\/395\/752\/case.html The Institute for Criminal Justice Ethics (n.d.). Retrieved July 20, 2010, from <\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu\/cje\/html\/policeethics.html <\/p>\n
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) [Electronic version]. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from <\/p>\n
http:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/us\/392\/1\/case.html United States v. Watson , 423 U.S. 411 (1975). Retrieved July 20, 2010, from<\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/supct\/html\/historics\/USSC_CR_0423_0411_ZS.html<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\ufeffRunning Head: Fourth Amendments’ Arrests and Stops\u00a0 Fourth Amendments’ Arrests and Stops Name Course Tutor Date Introduction The 4th Amendment<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-50434","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n