Assume A Law Enforcement Officer Has Probable Cause To Arres

Assume A Law Enforcement Officer Has Probable Cause To Arrest A Defend

Assume a law enforcement officer has probable cause to arrest a defendant for armed assault, and he also has probable cause to believe that the person is hiding in a third person's garage, which is attached to the house. What warrants, if any, does the officer need to enter the garage to arrest the defendant? What if the officer is in hot pursuit of the defendant? What if the defendant is known to be injured and unarmed? Provide evidence to support your answer.

Formulate a set of circumstances in which there is probable cause to search but not probable cause to arrest or in which there is probable cause to both arrest and to search. Mr. A walks into a police station, drops three wristwatches on a table, and tells an officer that Mr. B robbed a local jewelry store 2 weeks ago. Mr. A will not say anything else in response to police questioning. A quick investigation reveals that the three watches were among a number of items stolen in the jewelry store robbery. Do the police have probable cause to do any or all of the following? Arrest Mr. A, Arrest Mr. B, Search Mr. A's home, Search Mr. B's home. If you answered no to any of the above, explain why in detail. If you answered yes to any of them, draft the complaint or affidavit for a warrant or explain why a warrant is not needed. Be sure to cite all references in APA format with references.

Paper For Above instruction

The question of wiretapping and electronic surveillance presents critical challenges to balancing law enforcement interests and individual privacy rights. The legal framework governing such surveillance is primarily derived from statutes like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and case law interpreting constitutional protections under the Fourth Amendment. This paper explores the legal requirements for warrants, probable cause, and the exigencies that influence warrantless entries or searches.

Warrants and Probable Cause for Entry into the Garage

Standard Warrants and Probable Cause

In general, under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement officers require probable cause and a valid warrant supported by sworn affidavits to conduct a search or entry into private property, including garages. The case of Payton v. New York (1980) established that warrantless entries into a home are generally unconstitutional unless exigent circumstances exist. Since a garage attached to a house is considered part of the curtilage—protected by Fourth Amendment rights—an officer cannot enter the garage without a warrant unless specific exceptions apply.

Warrants Needed to Enter the Garage

In the scenario where an officer has probable cause to arrest a defendant for armed assault and believes the suspect is hiding in an attached garage, the officer typically needs a warrant to enter the garage unless exigent circumstances exist. These circumstances include hot pursuit, imminent danger, or risk of destruction of evidence. The case of United States v. Santana (1976) highlights that hot pursuit can justify warrantless entry into a residence or attached structures when police are actively pursuing a suspect involved in a crime. If the officer is in hot pursuit of the suspect, the warrant requirement may be waived, allowing entry without prior approval.

Injury and Unarmed Suspect Considerations

If the defendant is known to be injured and unarmed, the risk to officer safety diminishes, and the application of exigent circumstances may be less compelling. Nevertheless, police must still adhere to constitutional standards unless an emergency exists. The courts have held that the nature of the threat and the immediacy of the situation guide exigency claims, and injury alone does not automatically justify warrantless entry.

Probable Cause to Search but Not Arrest

Consider a scenario where law enforcement has probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime exists but not enough to arrest. For example, in searches, the Carroll Doctrine (from Carroll v. United States, 1925) allows warrantless searches of vehicles when there is probable cause to believe they contain evidence, avoiding the need for formal arrest procedures. Likewise, for searches of homes or persons, the Mincey (1978) case requires a warrant unless exigent circumstances justify immediate entry.

Probable Cause to Arrest and Search in the Case of Mr. A and Mr. B

In the scenario where Mr. A walks into the police station, drops watches, and claims that Mr. B committed a robbery, the police may have probable cause to arrest B based on the stolen items and the statement connected to the stolen goods. Probable cause to arrest hinges on reasonable grounds to believe a person committed a crime, which exists if items stolen from a burglary are linked to the suspect, and statements implicate him. Probable cause to arrest Mr. A exists if his actions and statement suggest involvement in the theft; however, the statement alone may not suffice without corroborating evidence.

Regarding searches, police need warrants to search either person's home unless exigent circumstances are present. Under the Exigent Circumstances exception, officers might justify a warrantless search if they believe evidence might be destroyed or if there is an immediate threat to safety.

Legal Analysis and Drafting Warrants

For any arrests or searches without clear exigent circumstances, officers would need to obtain warrants supported by probable cause. Such warrants would specify the items to be seized or the premises to be searched and include affidavits demonstrating the grounds for suspicion.

Conclusion

The Fourth Amendment's protections necessitate warrants supported by probable cause for most searches and entries. Exceptions like hot pursuit, exigent circumstances, or the Caroll Doctrine allow warrantless actions if justified sufficiently. Law enforcement must carefully evaluate each situation and adhere to constitutional standards to maintain the legality and legitimacy of their actions.

References

• Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).
• Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
• United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976).
• Mincedy v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978).
• United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976).
• Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013).
• Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
• Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 (1979).
• United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983).
• LaFave, W. R. (2017). Search and seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment. West Academic Publishing.