4th Amendmant and Probable Cause

In the coupled States, the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial adulation of essayes and ecstasys through the appropriate warrant procedure. In most instances, failure to succeed with the warrant collectment can only be excused by exigent circumstances. There should be circumstances sufficient to warrant a prudent man to believe that the person stopped had committed or was committing an offense. Intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights must be based on more than unarticulated hunches, and simple good faith on part of the policeman is non enough.The facts should prove average inferences derived from unusual conduct. A person may curse usurpation of his poop Amendment rights in connection with hunt or seizure only if he can show up a true(a) anticipation of privacy in the ara take c atomic number 18ed or items seized. To establish, for quaternary Amendment purposes, a legitimate expectation of privacy in area cha conditiond or items s eized, suspects must demonstrate (1) subjective expectation of privacy and (2) that this expectation is one that society is hustling to recognize as objectively honest.Under Fourth Amendment, police are authorized to conduct a warrantless protective pat-down of individuals they encounter in the empyrean so long as their concerns are justified by reasonable suspiciousness of possible danger. Under the Fourth Amendment, police may arrange warrantless searches incident to a lawful arrest, as it is reasonable for governing to search an arrestee for weapons that might threaten their safety, or for assure which might be destroyed.The United States commanding Court has explicitly determined that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in an automobile belonging to another. though the passenger does not have a standing to argufy the search of car that he does not own, he can still challenge the lawfulness of his own detention when the car is stopped at a dose interdictio n checkpoint, and therefore, he can seek to suppress both evidence seized as fruit of his allegedly illegal detention.Even presume that drug interdiction checkpoint was legal, such(prenominal) that the officers did not violate the passengers Fourth Amendment rights by stopping the vehicle in which he was riding, a passengers detention was held to be independent and separate from officers discovery of drugs during the search of the vehicles driver/owner consensual search of the vehicle. The stop and search of a moving automobile can be made with prohibited a warrant but, automobile or no automobile, there must be probable cause for the search.Probable cause to search exists when there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime ordain be found in a particular place. Standards of reasonable suspicion and probable cause, as used to appraise constitutionality of investigative stops and searches, are not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rule s but rather are super C sense, non- technical conceptions that deal with factual and practical con steadrations of everyday tone on which reasonable and prudent persons, not legal technicians, act.Standards are suave concepts that take their substantive content from particular contexts in which standards are be assessed. The United States Supreme Court held that brief, suspicion-less seizures at highway checkpoints for the purposes of combating drunk crusade and intercepting illegal immigrants were constitutional. The Fourth Amendment requires that searches and seizures be reasonable. A search and seizure is unremarkably unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.When officers have reasonable suspicion that occupants of a vehicle are engaged in sinful activity, they may briefly stop the vehicle to investigate. Police may gull an investigative stop of a vehicle when they have reasonable suspicion of an ongoing crime, whether it be a felony or misde meanor, including drunk driving in jurisdictions where that is a criminal offense. Police may also make a stop when they have reasonable suspicion of a completed felony, though not of a mere completed misdemeanor.The court in sundry(a) cases held that for purposes of find whether an investigative stop is justified by reasonable suspicion, the next instances may be taken in to account, as the traffic violation of failure to stay within passs, a drivers decrease down, stiffening of posture, and failure to acknowledge a sighted law enforcement officer might well be unremarkable in one instance, such as a busy San Francisco highway, while quite unusual in another, such as a remote portion of rural s protrudeheastern Arizona. But a brief veering out of a lane of travel on a windy day does not ordain probable cause to the police to stop the vehicle.In making reasonable-suspicion determinations, reviewing courts must look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whe ther the detaining officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing. center of the circumstances approach to making reasonable-suspicion determinations allows officers to draw on their own own and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information operational to them that might well elude an untrained person.Although an officers credit on a mere hunch is insufficient to prune an investigatory stop, the likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the select required for probable cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard. Although the concept of reasonable suspicion required to justify an investigatory stop is somewhat abstract, the United States Supreme Court has advisedly avoided reducing it to a neat set of legal rules.In determining whether individualized suspicion is required to suffer a stop of a motorists vehicle, the United States Supreme Court considered the nature of the interests threaten and their connection to the particular law enforcement practices at issue. The Court is particularly unwilling to recognize exceptions to the world(a) rule of individualized suspicion where governmental authorities primarily pursue their general crime control ends.While subjective intentions on the part of police officers play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis, checkpoint stops may be relevant to the validity of Fourth Amendment intrusions undertaken pursuant to a general scheme without individualized suspicion. The United States Supreme Court determined that checkpoints set up for general crime prevention, including drug interdiction, do not pass constitutional muster under the Fourth Amendment.The United States Supreme Court noted that checkpoint cases only limited exceptions to the general rule that a seizure must be accompanied by some measure of individualized suspicion. An Anatomy of a Crimina l campaign Most criminal outpourings keep a uniform set of procedures. The numerous rituals associated with modern trials have developed over centuries. Americas common law heritage makes it possible for all states and the federal government to follow a largely uniform set of procedures. presume that the trial is carried out to completion, those procedures are as followsDecision on label or dialog box. The defense reaction reaction mechanism decides whether it wants the case tried by a essay or a dialog box (the quest cant require a venire trial). Jury selection. If the trial will be held before a jury, the defense and prosecution select the jury through a question and final result process called voir dire. In federal courts and many state courts, the think carries out this process using questions suggested by the attorneys as well as questions that the judge comes up with on his or her own. Evidence issues.The defense and prosecution solicit the court, in advance of trial, to admit or exclude certain evidence. These requests are called motions in limine. Opening statements. The prosecution and then the defense make go-ahead statements to the judge or jury. These statements provide an outline of the case that each side expects to prove. Because neither side wants to look foolish to the jury, the attorneys are careful to shout only what they think they can deliver. In some cases the defense attorney reserves opening argument until the beginning of the defense case.criminal prosecution case-in-chief. The prosecution presents its main case through direct examination of prosecution witnesses by the prosecutor. Cross-examination. The defense may cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. Redirect. The prosecution may re-examine its witnesses. Prosecution rests. The prosecution finishes presenting its case. Motion to cut down (optional). The defense may move to dismiss the charges if it thinks that the prosecution has failed to produce enough ev idence even if the jury believes it to support a guilty verdict. Denial of motion to dismiss.Almost always, the judge denies the defense motion to dismiss. self-abnegation case-in-chief. The defense presents its main case through direct examination of defense witnesses. Cross-examination. The prosecutor cross-examines the defense witnesses. Redirect. The defense re-examines the defense witnesses. defence mechanism rests. The defense finishes presenting its case. Prosecution rebuttal. The prosecutor offers evidence to refute the defense case. remittal on jury instructions. The prosecution and defense get together with the judge and craft a final set of instructions that the judge will give the jury.Prosecution closing argument. The prosecution makes its closing argument, summarizing the evidence as the prosecution sees it, and explaining wherefore the jury should render a guilty verdict. Defense closing argument. The defense makes its closing argument, summarizing the evidence a s the defense sees it, and explaining why the jury should render a not guilty verdict or at least a guilty verdict on a lesser charge. Prosecution rebuttal. The prosecution has the last word, if it chooses to do so, and again argues that the jury has credible evidence that supports a finding of guilty. Jury instructions.The judge instructs the jury about what law to apply to the case and how to carry out its duties. (Some settle preinstruct juries, reciting instructions before closing argument or even at the outset of trial. ) Jury deliberations. The jury deliberates and tries to reach a verdict. Most states require unanimous agreement, but Oregon and Louisiana allow convictions with only 10 of 12 votes. Post-trial motions. If the jury produces a guilty verdict, the defense often makes post-trial motions requesting the judge to override the jury and either grant a new trial or acquit the defendant.Denial of post-trial motions. Almost always, the judge denies the defense post-trial motions. Sentencing. Assuming a conviction (a verdict of guilty), the judge either sentences the defendant on the spot or sets sentencing for another day. To read and printout a model of the Form please link below. Checklist Documents Your Attorney Will Need Be Sociable, Share chirp Facebook email StumbleUpon Delicious Google Reader LinkedIn BlinkList Digg Google Bookmarks Myspace Post to Twitter