4th Amendmant and Probable Cause

In the United States, the constabulary must, whenever practicable, obtain clear judicial approval of huntes and seizures through the appropriate warrant procedure. In just ab verboten instances, failure to comply with the warrant strikement faecal matter exclusively be excused by exigent circumstances. There should be circumstances satisfactory to warrant a prudent man to believe that the nearbody halt 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 ploughsh are of the military officer is not enough.The facts should prove healthy inferences derived from unusual conduct. A person whitethorn assert violation of his quartern Amendment rights in connection with hunting or seizure only if he can demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched or items seized. To establish, for quaternary Amendment purposes, a legitimate expectation o f privacy in area searched or items seized, defendants must demonstrate (1) subjective expectation of privacy and (2) that this expectation is genius that society is prepared to recognize as objectively reasonable.Under Fourth Amendment, police are authorized to conduct a warrantless protective pat-down of individuals they adopt in the field so long as their concerns are reassert by reasonable suspiciousness of possible danger. Under the Fourth Amendment, police may execute warrantless searches incident to a lawful arrest, as it is reasonable for authorities to search an arrestee for weapons that king threaten their safety, or for evidence which might be destroyed.The United States commanding mash has explicitly determined that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in an travel belonging to another. Though the passenger does not take away a stand up to challenge the search of car that he does not own, he can still challenge the lawfulness of his own detention wh en the car is stop at a drug interdiction checkpoint, and therefore, he can essay to suppress any evidence seized as fruit of his allegedly inglorious detention.Even assuming that drug interdiction checkpoint was heavy, such that the officers did not recrudesce the passengers Fourth Amendment rights by stopping the vehicle in which he was riding, a passengers detention was held to be supreme and separate from officers discovery of drugs during the search of the vehicles driver/ possessor consensual search of the vehicle. The stop and search of a moving locomote can be made without a warrant only if, automobile or no automobile, there must be probable cause for the search. seeming cause to search exists when there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be implant in a particular place. Standards of reasonable irresolution and probable cause, as used to evaluate constitutionality of investigative stops and searches, are not representily, or stoc k-still usefully, reduced to a neat set of advantageously-grounded rules but rather are common sense, non- technical conceptions that deal with factual and working considerations of every daytime life on which reasonable and prudent persons, not legal technicians, act.Standards are fluid concepts that take their substantive content from particular contexts in which standards are being assessed. The United States Supreme speak to held that brief, hesitancy-less seizures at bridle-path checkpoints for the purposes of combating rummy driving and intercepting illegal immigrants were constitutional. The Fourth Amendment requires that searches and seizures be reasonable. A search and seizure is ordinarily unreasonable in the absence of distinguish suspicion of wrongdoing.When officers have reasonable suspicion that occupants of a vehicle are prosecute in criminal activity, they may briefly stop the vehicle to investigate. law may make an investigative stop of a vehicle when they have reasonable suspicion of an ongoing crime, whether it be a felony or misdemeanor, including drunk driving in jurisdictions where that is a criminal offense. Police may in any shell make a stop when they have reasonable suspicion of a completed felony, though not of a mere completed misdemeanor.The salute in various personas held that for purposes of determining whether an investigatory stop is justified by reasonable suspicion, the following instances may be taken in to account, as the traffic violation of failure to stay within lanes, a drivers slowing down, stiffening of posture, and failure to acknowledge a sight law enforcement officer might well be unremarkable in one instance, such as a busy San Francisco highway, while kinda unusual in another, such as a remote parcel of rural southeastern Arizona. But a brief veering out of a lane of travel on a windy day does not give 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(prenominal) case to see whether the detaining officer has a particularized and objective derriere for suspecting legal wrongdoing. Totality of the circumstances approach to making reasonable-suspicion determinations forgets officers to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the additive information available to them that might well elude an untrained person.Although an officers reliance on a mere hunch is meager to justify an investigatory stop, the likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the level required for probable cause, and it falls considerably piteous 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 deliberately avoided reducing it to a neat set of legal rules.In determining whet her individualized suspicion is required to support a stop of a motorists vehicle, the United States Supreme Court considered the nature of the interests threatened and their connection to the particular law enforcement practices at issue. The Court is particularly reluctant to recognize exceptions to the world-wide rule of individualized suspicion where governmental authorities primarily pursue their general crime secure ends.While subjective intentions on the part of police officers play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis, checkpoint stops may be pertinent 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 convoke under the Fourth Amendment.The United States Supreme Court noted that checkpoint cases only limited exceptions to the g eneral rule that a seizure must be accompanied by some measure of individualized suspicion. An Anatomy of a Criminal Trial Most criminal trials follow a undifferentiated set of procedures. The many rituals associated with modern trials have developed over centuries. the Statess common law heritage makes it possible for all cites and the federal official government to follow a largely uniform set of procedures. presumptuous that the trial is carried out to completion, those procedures are as followsDecision on gauge or jury. The justification decides whether it wants the case tried by a essay or a jury (the prosecution cant require a jury trial). instrument panel selection. If the trial will be held ahead a jury, the denial and prosecution select the jury through a question and answer process called voir dire. In federal courts and many state courts, the hazard carries out this process using questions suggested by the attorneys as well as questions that the approximate com es up with on his or her own. Evidence issues.The plea and prosecution request the court, in advance of trial, to admit or take out certain evidence. These requests are called motions in limine. Opening statements. The prosecution and then the demurrer make opening 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 promise only what they think they can deliver. In some cases the falsification attorney reserves opening argument until the beginning of the defense case.Prosecution case-in-chief. The prosecution presents its main case through direct testing 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 dismiss (optional). The defense may move to dismiss the charges if it thinks that the prosecution has failed to produce enough evidence even if the jury believes it to support a at fault verdict. Denial of motion to dismiss. close always, the judge denies the defense motion to dismiss. Defense 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. Defense rests. The defense finishes presenting its case. Prosecution rebuttal. The prosecutor offers evidence to rebut the defense case. Settling on jury operating instructions. The prosecution and defense thwart together with the judge and craft a final set of instructions that the judge will give the jury.Prosecution settlement argument. The prosecution makes its closing argument, summarizing the evidence as the prosecution sees it, and explaining why the jury should render a guilty verdict. D efense closing argument. The defense makes its closing argument, summarizing the evidence as 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 engage out its duties. (Some judges 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 de fendant.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 copy of the Form please link below. Checklist Documents Your Attorney leave Need Be Sociable, Share Twitter Facebook email StumbleUpon Delicious Google ref LinkedIn BlinkList Digg Google Bookmarks Myspace Post to Twitter