Questions on Law - Assignment Example

? ESSAY QUESTIONS 12 February ESSAY QUESTIONS Question How the prosecution is likely to respond to the motion and how the judge is likely to rule The suspects were booked after the police followed a tip of their involvement in a crime. The police officer who witnessed their act together with his back up team issued citation for the suspects. The gang moved a motion for dismissal of their cases on the ground that their citations were issued by officers who lacked probable cause. Legal principle: Prosecution’s reasoning The case is based on the principle of probable cause for making an arrest. Under the principle, a police officer can make a warrantless arrest, and citation, if there is a sufficient probable cause. A police officer can justify the move under probable cause in two circumstances. The officer must be able to explain the information that led to the assumption that the suspect was involved in a criminal act and the officer’s move must have been based on the suspected cause (Bergman and Berman, 2011). The likely ruling In the cases of Maryland vs. Pringe, Ybarra v Illinois and the case of State v. Sokolow, it was held that the presence of an incriminating evidence and reasonable suspicion form ground for sufficient probable cause to arrest a suspect. It was further held, in the case of Alabama v. White, existence of probable cause is sufficient. The judge is therefore likely to uphold the case due to sufficiency of probable cause that the officers had (Bergman and Berman, 2011), (Carmen, 2009), (Meeker, 2004). Reason This is because though the other officers were not present during the alleged crime, they had sufficient and reliable information to believe that the suspect had been involved in the alleged act (Bergman and Berman, 2011). Question 2 Grounds for suppression of the paper In the process of issuing citations, the suspects were frisked and a written evidenced retrieved. They moved a motion to suppress the evidence. Grounds for seeking suppression of the paper One of the legal principles of a warrantless search is that the suspect must voluntarily consent. Failure to consent would lead to inadmissibility due to an illegal search. In the case of United States vs. Hernandez, it was held that evidence obtained without voluntary consent is inadmissible. The gang can use this principal to suppress the paper (Meeker, 2004). Prosecution’s likely argument The law exempts the need for warrant before a search in cases where the searches are immediately related to an arrest. In the case of Colorado v. Bertine, the courts held that searches of a person’s possession are admissible if the search is done within the immediate scope of the arrest. The prosecution can thus argue that the retrieval of the paper was incident to the issuing of citations and therefore admissible (Carmen, 2009). The judge’s likely decision The judge is likely to uphold the evidence. This is because the suspects were under the authority of the police and the case of Colorado v. Bertine would be more applicable (Carmen, 2009). Question 3 Search of Ma’s car Tony accepts citation and gets into Ma’s car. A police officer then asked to search Ma’s car and she sped off. Legal status of the search Ma was obliged to let the police officer search her car. Reason Search on motor vehicles are governed by the Fourth amendment. Under warrantless search and frisk, a motorist can be searched on two grounds. The motorist must have been reasonably suspected of association with a criminal act. A search is also called for if the police officer feels threatened. The basis of a motorist’s association with a criminal act was established in the case of Pennsylvania vs. Mimms in which it was held that there must be a legal ground for stopping the car (Carmen, 2009). Persuading the court that the search was invalid A search, considered as a breach of a person’s privacy, is valid if it is done legally. The general rule for warrantless searches is that they have to be done with free consent of the suspect and there must be reasonable probable cause for a search. These principles are supported by the case of Pennsylvania vs. Mimms and the case of United States vs. Hernandez. Further, the case of Illinois v Wardlow provides that a motorist’s flight without a reasonable cause upon noting the presence of police officers warrant a stop and frisk. Ma’s escape was fronted by the actions of the police. Ma would have therefore been able to persuade the courts that the search was invalid (Carmen, 2009), (Meeker, 2004). Reason The search would have been invalid because the police had no reasonable cause to suspect Ma of any criminal act. Further, the search would have been out of intimidation by the police (Carmen, 2009), (Meeker, 2004). Question 4 Dismissal of the illegal u-turn case The case is based on principles of traffic violations. A police officer, on grounds of probable cause, can make a stop order and consequently search or even arrest a motorist. Similarly, once a stop order is issued, the motorist is under obligation to comply until granted permission by the police officer. These principles were established in the case of Arizona vs. Johnson (Bergman and Berman, 2011). In the case, Ma expressed association with a suspected gang formed ground for probable cause and there was an implied stop. Further, it was held in the case of Terry v Ohio that a police officer can make a legal warrantless search is he suspects existence of weapons (Meeker, 2004). The case is therefore not likely to be dismissed because the police had reasonable cause to stop and search the car (Bergman and Berman, 2011). Question 5 Motion to suppress evidence The case is based on the principle of admissibility of evidence based on its legality. Under this rule, a police office can legally acquire evidence from a person who has been issued with a citation. This induces grounds for probable cause for a search. Such was the reasoning in the case of Virginia vs. Moore. The suspect was also under seizure of the police as defined by the case of California v Hodari D. It can further be argued that the pursuit was incident to the legal stop of Ma’s car as illustrated by the case of Whren v United States. Though the defendant may argue that they were seized without a warrant, hence illegal, the case of Brendlin v California grants the police authority over occupants of a vehicle once a stop is made (Bergman and Berman, 2011), (Meeker, 2004). The judge is therefore likely to admit the evidence as legal since the acquisition of the evidence was incident to a citation and seizure (Bergman and Berman, 2011). Question 6 Arguments over search of Ma’s car Based on the case of State vs. Kyong Cha Kim, evidence that is acquired upon voluntary consent is considerably valid irrespective of the circumstances surrounding the consent. Even though Ma was intoxicated, the police officer, who did not initiate her status and had no prior information of such status, was justified to have acted on her consent (Bergman and Berman, 2011). Further, entry into a home without a warrant is justified if there was consent and the involved crime is serious as was held in the case of Welsh v Wisconsin (Carmen, 2009). The judge is therefore likely to accept the evidence because there was voluntary consent by Ma. Question seven Warrant for searching Ma’s car Earp would have not been able to get a search warrant for Ma’s car. This is because there was no ground for probable cause for the search (Carmen, 2009). References Bergman, P., and Berman, S. (2011). The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System. California, CA: Nolo Carmen, R. (2009). Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning Meeker, J. (2004). Fourth amendment issues: Arrest, search and seizure. State and federal law update. Retrieved from: http://www.yourhonor.com/dwi/SBM/SBM2.pdf Read More