Download file to see previous pages...
According to the US constitution, provisions for probable cause allow persons the right to secure their persons and property against unprovoked searches and seizures. However, there are some instances where searches and arrests can be done without warrants. This paper will examine an article from the Seattle Times in 2008, which speaks to the essence of search warrants specifically with regard to traffic stops.
The article documents the incident of a traffic stop in Skagit County in 2006. According to the article, following a unanimous ruling, the court held that the smell of pot is not sufficient probable cause to necessitate the arrest and search of all vehicle occupants (Jones, 2008). This article identifies warrant requirements, and the ruling sets the foundation for what may be in the offing regarding probable cause and criminal procedure.
Typically probable cause regarding vehicles and occupants should be affirmed by either a search warrant or warrant of arrest. However, in the case, in question, the officer conducted a warrantless search of the vehicle and its occupants in the basis of sheer smell of marijuana emitted from the vehicle. Essentially, the sheer smell of illegal drugs may not be sufficient to support probable cause as the smell of illegal drugs may linger in a vehicle for several days or even weeks. The officer investigating such incident may be forced to result to additional legal outlets that allow for further investigation of the smell. The officer in question should, therefore, have called for a search and arrest warrant on the basis of just cause, i.e. the smell as illicit drugs in the vehicle. This would have given the officer leeway to search, and detain all vehicle occupants and the latter would have been convicted much easier and without the court’s current decision. This is of paramount importance as the case’s police spokesman asserted
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
The largest amount of judicial power resting in the hands of the individual states as per the Constitution itself, in quoting the Constitution itself, “to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.” (Article III, 1791) However, according to Article I, Section 8 we notice that Congress is given very broad powers with regards to lawmaking specifically when providing for the “common defense and general welfare of the United States?
Criminal law and the civil law are two different laws according to its foundation to deal with the cases separately (Michael, 2009). If someone violates the criminal law, the criminal procedure takes it course against the violator to implement its writ. In many democracies of the world wherein the criminal cases burden of proof lies on the shoulder of prosecution.
Regarding this, the proponent tries to compare and contrast the role of due process and crime control models on shaping criminal procedure policy. Thus, the analysis includes a review and assessment of the Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights to the states and their potential impacts on the criminal justice system as applied to due process and crime control models.
Hence, with the kind of role that criminal justice policy can not be able to perform its duties exhaustively since managing all the criminal justice is such a crucial role to play. Many people fail to understand why the criminal justice can not cater for matters that are related to security.
This was in new agreement after the Supreme Court Case Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980): which "Struck a portion of Alabama's death penalty law that blocked juries from convicting defendants of an included lesser offense rather than the capital crime itself; juries were required to either convict a defendant of the capital crime or to acquit him."( http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/history.html) In was in the passing of previous laws regarding the death penalty that Alabama safeguards in all of its regulations:
The officer does not need a warrant to enter the garage to arrest the defendant. If the Officer has probable cause to believe the defendant to be armed and dangerous, these would be considered an exigent circumstance1 which merits a warrant less search of the garage to apprehend an armed and dangerous suspect.
Circumstantial evidences may sometimes lead the police officers to detain suspected people for interrogation. At the same time the investigating officer should have reasonable evidences to arrest or detain a suspected person. For
In light of the knowledge that the factors presented are the determinants of the setting, I would move a strong case involving the history of the customer. I would portray the man as a family man and a breadwinner. The setting of the bail should put into consideration the family interests. The man has a job which could be lost due to being put in custody it would affect his future.
In this regard, the author is identified to be adherence to textaulism2;3. Contextually, the essay majorly focuses towards understanding the patterns of textualisation as described by ’Antonin Scalia’.