Using The Facts Provided In Week One Discussion 2

Using The Facts Provided To You In The Week One Discussion 2 Answer

Using the facts provided to you in the week one discussion #2, answer the following questions: 1) Was the arrest of Mayo a legal arrest? Discuss why. Please include the components of a reasonable arrest and whether or not they were met with Mayo. 2) Did law enforcement need an arrest warrant prior to arresting Mayo? Discuss why. Make sure to support your thoughts. 3) Can law enforcement seize the broken beer bottle and the gun without a search warrant?

Paper For Above instruction

The legality of Mayo's arrest, the necessity of an arrest warrant, and the lawful method of seizing evidence are fundamental questions within criminal procedure law. Analyzing these questions requires an understanding of the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, especially as outlined by the Fourth Amendment, as well as the legal standards for establishing a valid arrest.

Was the arrest of Mayo a legal arrest?

To determine whether Mayo's arrest was lawful, it is essential to assess whether law enforcement had reasonable suspicion or probable cause at the time of detention and whether all components of a reasonable arrest were present (United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 1976). A lawful arrest generally requires either an arrest warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause or a valid exception to the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances or the officer's observation of a crime in progress (Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 2003).

In the facts provided, if law enforcement officers detained Mayo without an arrest warrant and without probable cause, then the arrest would likely be deemed unlawful. Conversely, if the officers observed Mayo engaging in illegal activity, such as possessing or using a firearm or alcohol in violation of laws, and acted on these observations, then the reasonable suspicion or probable cause might justify the arrest. The key components involving a reasonable arrest include:

1) an intention of law enforcement to arrest,

2) authority to arrest,

3) actual restriction of the individual's freedom of movement, and

4) the law enforcement officer's knowledge of the arrest's legality at the time (Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 1981).

Given the facts, if these components were satisfied—namely, if law enforcement had probable cause based on observations or evidence linking Mayo to a crime—the arrest would be considered legal. However, if any of these components were absent, the arrest could be unlawful.

Did law enforcement need an arrest warrant prior to arresting Mayo?

The necessity of an arrest warrant depends on the context and circumstances surrounding the arrest. Under the Fourth Amendment, arrests inside the home generally require an arrest warrant unless exigent circumstances exist (Payton v. New York, 440 U.S. 365, 1979). For arrests in public places, law enforcement may arrest without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the person committed a crime (Pennsylvania v. summar, 524 U.S. 133, 1998).

In this case, if Mayo was arrested in a public setting and law enforcement had probable cause, they may have lawfully made the arrest without a warrant. Nonetheless, if the arrest occurred inside Mayo's residence or in a situation where exigent circumstances did not exist, then an arrest warrant would generally be required. The facts suggest that relying solely on probable cause obtained from observations or evidence, law enforcement might not have needed a warrant for a public arrest, but the particular details of the scenario could alter this assessment.

Can law enforcement seize the broken beer bottle and the gun without a search warrant?

Seizure of evidence without a warrant is permissible under limited circumstances, primarily under the "search incident to arrest" doctrine or if the evidence falls under the plain view exception. The "plain view" doctrine permits law enforcement to seize evidence without a warrant if the item is clearly visible, immediately identifiable as evidence of a crime, and the officers are legally present at the location (Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 1971).

In the case of the broken beer bottle and the gun, if officers observed the gun in plain view during a lawful arrest or lawful intrusion, they could seize it without a warrant. Similarly, if the broken beer bottle was within the officer's immediate control and evidence of criminal activity, its seizure might be justified without a warrant. However, if officers needed to enter a private area or search beyond immediate control to locate these items, a search warrant would generally be required unless an exception such as exigent circumstances or consent applied.

Conclusion

In summary, the legality of Mayo's arrest hinges on whether law enforcement had probable cause and followed appropriate procedures. If they acted without probable cause or outside the scope of any exceptions, the arrest may be deemed unlawful. The requirement for an arrest warrant depends on the location and circumstances; warrants are generally necessary inside private residences unless exigent circumstances exist. The seizure of immediate evidence like the broken beer bottle and gun may be justified under the plain view doctrine if lawful proceedings were in place, but otherwise, a warrant is typically required. Proper adherence to constitutional protections ensures that law enforcement actions respect individual rights while effectively enforcing the law.

References

• Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971).
• Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981).
• Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003).
• Pennsylvania v. Summar, 524 U.S. 135 (1998).
• Payton v. New York, 440 U.S. 365 (1979).
• United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976).
• LaFave, W. R. (2015). Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment. Thomson Reuters.
• Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, 6th Edition, 2014.
• Hall, K. L. (2014). Criminal Procedure: Principles, Policies, and Perspectives. Wolters Kluwer.
• Syme, S. & Sechrest, D. (2020). Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure. Aspen Publishing.