Criminal Procedure Essay Example for Free

Criminal Procedure EssayOne whitethorn well ask How bottomland you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others? The answer lies in the fact that in that respect are two types of laws nonwithstanding and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has non only a legal but, a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. Martin Luther King, Jr.Imagine a perfect society, where the population had a archetype set of rules and followed them. In that perfect society, everyone knew the rules down to a specific science hence, they knew how to obey express rules. Unfortunately in our time, we do not beat a perfect society. Our civilization has lost the cognition of their functions unless either a.) laws were broken by an individual or b.) the individual is studying or examining criminal law. either way, our society unknowingly forfeits their rights in certain situations. On the other hand, ther e are law enforcement ships incumbents who clear sworn to uphold these rights to obtain their position. Some do not know themselves, when they have crossed the cable television of duty or violated a right. It is up to us to break down and identify the rigorousness and righteousness of the military officer metalworker The Gold Pontiac situation we are presented with.Reasonable unimpression is a standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than apparent cause, that can justify less-intrusive betes. A liable qualm exists when a reasonable person under the consideratenesss, would, establish upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been act (Reasonable Suspicion, Cornell Law School Library 2013). Officer Smith describeed over a gold, older model Pontiac because she observe tape on what she suspected to be broken. One might wonder why Officer Smith pulled the Pontiac over. In most states, the device number one wood is held accountable for faulty equipment of their fomite. Unless the tape is red, reflective and transparent, an officer has every right to pull the driver over and issue a tatter. In my own experience, it is highly kindredly for a police officer to pull someone over if there was an obstruction of a head or taillight. I myself have been pulled over for something similar in which I received a warning or ticket. On her way to the drivers window, Officer Smith remembers the description of a vehicle that was recently involved in a roadside killing of another police officer.That description fit with the Pontiac she had just pulled over. Officer Smith proceeds to ask the driver to wee-wee out of the vehicle so she may extradite a quick swob down for weapons. According to the Fourth Amendment, a justifiable appear begins with reasonable suspicion. In this case, Officer Smith asks the driver to endure a stop and frisk. This means, the officer had the right to ask for a quick pat down of the drivers outer tog in search of a weapon(s). In my belief, the drivers rights were not violated and valid based on the officers request for a stop and frisk. energy illegal has happened between the two. If, during the pat down for weapons, the officer feels a weapon on the individual, the officer then has probable cause to conduct a complete search. (Roberson, Wallace Stuckey, 2007 p.83)In our example, a weapon was not felt or institute on the driver. Furthermore, Officer Smith has now conducted whats known as a Terry Stop. What is the discrimination between a Terry Stop and the Stop and Frisk you ask? There isnt all significant difference. Prior to Terry Vs. Ohio (1968), a stop and frisk protected against illegitimate search and seizure. Where as after, it is come to be known as constitutional according to circumstances where a reasonably curious officer has a valid concern for societies or his/her safety. After the Terry Stop, Officer Smith say the driver to have a seat in the vehicle and asks for their driver license and registration. I would reckon that this procedure is pretty standard in identifying who the driver is and maybe writing out a ticket for the taillight tape. The driver had other plans and speeds away from Officer Smith without giving requested information. It is to my knowledge that Officer Smith has more than reasonable suspicion now. She has probable cause to believe that the driver was in fact, the slayer from the incident shed heard about.With probable cause, Officer Smith proceeds to chase the Pontiac. The chase ends when the driver of the Pontiac hits a telephone pole. You may stop to ask me What is the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion? From my understanding of the two, probable cause is grounds for a warrant or for an arrest. Reasonable suspicion is not but, it may be grounds to further investigate or for a police officer to detain a person or vehicle for further investigation (Florida maintain University Law Review, su mmertime (2006), Vol. 33, Issue 4, 1239-1248). Im compelled to agree with officer Smith in this instance. The driver demonstrated intoxicating behavior, presenting exigent circumstances for Officer Smith to give chase to this vehicle. According to The Cornell Law Library, an exigent circumstance is a circumstance that requires an immediate response.It occurs when police officers believe they have probable cause and there is no time to obtain a warrant. (Exigent Circumstance), Cornell Law School Library 2013) Being that the chase ended with a severe crash, Officer Smith did respond immediately to the situation. Furthermore, our scenario goes on to explain that Officer Smith feared that the machine might catch on fire from the leaking gas tank. She pulls out the driver from the vehicle and goes back to get her suitcase for identification. It is then that Officer Smith see to its that the glove box has popped open and in it was a art object with documents on top of it. We are aske d to think about if the spell was in plain view and if it was legitimately obtained? Since I am just a Criminal Justice student, I would have to say optimistic to both. I say that in full confidence because it is legal for an officer to enter a vehicle at the scene of an accident to assist without an issued search warrant. Without rummaging through the vehicles contents, the officer sees a weapon or narcotics. Even with the use of a flashlight, it is still considered legal.Just because something is hidden behind darkness, doesnt mean it wouldnt be seen during daylight, right? The other permissible circumstance regarding the plain view doctrine is, if the officer moves him or herself around to take a look. The object in plain view (without a thorough search) can be seized and is admissible evidence in court. The fact that the gun was seen through the documentation clearly shows that it was in plain view and didnt have to be searched for. Officer Smith goes on to find the drivers p urse. In an attempt to locate the drivers identification, she finds a baggie of Marijuana in the drivers purse. Although I do not believe that this will uphold as evidence in this case, it may present the driver with another set of charges against her. Perhaps the driver may get charged with possession of an illegal substance?However, I really feel that Officer Smith did not have the right to search for anything other than the drivers license, even though she did find the Marijuana in the purse. In my studies it would be considered Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. Although Officer Smith was legally allowed to enter the vehicle without a search warrant and assist in identifying the driver, I believe that the retrieval of the cannabis will not be permissible in court for the reasons Ive stated above. Our scenario also goes on to state that it was later found that this vehicle was not the vehicle involved in the death of the officer. It also states that it was determined that the tailligh t was not in fact broken.One might question or argue at this point, whether the entire scenario is justifiable or necessary? From my point of view it was entirely correct. The officer had a valid reason to pull the car over. She had reasonable suspicion for a Terry Stop. Her reasonable suspicion then turned to probable cause when the driver fled the sight without presenting the officer with what shed asked for. The officer then acted within a liable manner to help the driver out of the crashed vehicle. After all, law enforcement is there to protect and serve our community. The firearm was in plain sight of the officer while she tried to locate the drivers identification. Nothing except the search and seizure of the contents of the purse violated the rights of the driver nor incriminated the police officer.It is in my belief that Officer Smith couldve called for backup or help once she found the scene of the accident. She couldve taken the purse out of the vehicle and even seized th e gun. However, she had time to obtain a warrant to search the purse. In instances like we have just gone through, it is interesting to see just how knowledgeable each player is with their rights and responsibilities. We see these cases often in the news and some do not even make it to trial because either a right was violated or a piece of evidence was gathered with some luxate made in obtaining it. Dont interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.- President Abraham capital of NebraskaReferencesExigent Circumstance Def.1, In Legal info Institute, Cornell Univeristy Law School Libarary. Retrieved February 13, 2013, fromhttp//www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstancesPlain View philosophical system Def.1, In Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School Library. Retrieved February 15, 2013, from http//www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plain_view_doctrineReasonable Suspicion Def.1. In Legal Information I nstitute, Cornell University Law School Library. Retrieved February 13, 2013, from http//www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicionStuckey, G., Roberson, C., Wallace, H., (2006). Procedures in the Justice System (8th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ Pearson/Prentice Hall.Florida State University Law Review, Summer (2006), Vol. 33, Issue 4, 1239-1248, Retrieved February 14, 2013, from http//www.heinonline.org.lib.kaplan.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/flsulr33div=61