Assume A Law Enforcement Officer Has Probable Cause T 116780

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. APA format, 4 pages, 5 references cited throughout the paper. Abstract and Reference page. No plagiarism.

Paper For Above instruction

The issues of police authority to arrest or search are governed by constitutional principles stemming from the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. The nuances of probable cause and exigent circumstances dictate when law enforcement officers can conduct searches and arrests without a warrant. This paper explores scenarios involving probable cause for arrest and search, including entry into attached garages, hot pursuit, injuries, and unarmed suspects, complemented by legal analysis and supporting jurisprudence.

When an officer has probable cause to arrest a suspect located in a private residence or attached garage, the general rule is that a warrant is required before entering, unless exigent circumstances exist. The Supreme Court has clarified that access to a defendant’s private space normally mandates a warrant to protect individual privacy rights (Payton v. New York, 1980). However, if the officer is in hot pursuit of a suspect fleeing a crime scene, the exigent circumstances doctrine permits immediate entry without a warrant (Warden v. Hayden, 1967). In the specific case where a suspect is believed to be hiding in an attached garage, which is considered part of the curtilage—the area immediately surrounding the home—the legal precedents suggest that warrantless entry is generally impermissible unless exigent circumstances are present.

The defendant's injuries and unarmed status influence the level of exigency. An injured suspect may pose less immediate threat, but the privacy protections remain, requiring officers to obtain a warrant unless a recognized exception applies. The courts emphasize that protection of privacy takes precedence unless the officer faces danger, believes evidence may be destroyed, or the suspect poses an immediate threat (Minnick v. Mississippi, 1990). Consequently, in the absence of hot pursuit or exigent circumstances, an officer would need a warrant to enter the garage ultimately.

In scenarios where police have probable cause to search but not arrest, or both, the distinctions are critical. For example, probable cause to search a home based on evidence connecting a person to criminal activity allows officers to obtain search warrants supported by affidavits establishing probable cause (Gerstein v. Pugh, 1975). The case involving Mr. A and the stolen watches offers an example where law enforcement has probable cause to both arrest and search based on the suspect’s own statement and the stolen property evidence.

In the context of the case with Mr. A, the police's probable cause to arrest Mr. A is established through the stolen watches he admits to handling, linking him to the robbery. The police also have probable cause to arrest Mr. B if they have sufficient evidence connecting him to the crime, such as witness testimony, fingerprints, or other physical evidence. The search of Mr. A’s home may be justified with a warrant supported by probable cause, as the stolen items and Mr. A’s admission create probable cause to believe evidence of the crime exists there. Similarly, if evidence links Mr. B to the crime, the officers can seek a warrant to search his residence as well. Each warrant application must be supported by affidavits detailing the facts establishing probable cause (Illinois v. Gates, 1983).

Absent probable cause, law enforcement cannot lawfully arrest or search. Thus, a warrant is necessary unless exigent circumstances or other exceptions apply, such as consent or plain-view doctrine. For example, if the police lack sufficient evidence to tie Mr. B to the robbery, they cannot arrest him or search his residence without a warrant. Likewise, without probable cause connecting Mr. A to the crime beyond his own statement, search or arrest would be unconstitutional.

In summary, the legal standards governing warrants, arrests, and searches are nuanced and context-dependent. The presence of probable cause, exigent circumstances, and privacy interests shape law enforcement authority. Understanding these principles is essential for upholding constitutional protections while allowing criminal investigations.

References

• Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975).
• Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
• Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990).
• Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
• Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967).