Foundations of the Development and Functions of Police

 

Question 1

Probable cause can be defined as having sufficient facts, evidence, and trustworthy information that an offense has been committed (Harr & Hess, 2008).  It is important to understand that probable cause exists within the police knowledge, what the police have heard, what they observe, and what they know.  In other words, there should be a totality of circumstances which means that police should evaluate a number of factors and find a probable cause (Harr & Hess, 2008). The probable cause is important since it justifies searches and arrest and more importantly, the reasonable person supports the claim. Harr & Hess (2008) says that before the police engage in a lawful search or arrest, there should be a probable cause.  In other words, there should facts and evidence that an offense has been committed so that the police can start the process of search. It is also important to understand that probable cause comes from two sources: observational probable cause- this comes from government agents. The officers justify probable cause through using their own senses. For example, police officers may observe questionable or suspicious furtive conduct of an individual and develop a totality of the circumstances (Harr & Hess, 2008). For instance, in Illinois v. Wardlow,   the suspect was in a high-crime area and when he saw the police he escaped. This was a probable cause that the suspect committed or was planning to commit a crime.  The second source of probable cause is informational probable cause. This means that police can derive facts and evidence from official sources such as police broadcasts and other official police channels, and informants and witnesses (Harr & Hess, 2008).  The information from these sources is credible and sufficient to develop a probable cause.

 

            Houston (2016) assert that in establishing a probable cause, police officers must use the approach of all-elements approach.  However, it will be difficult to conceptualize the probable cause in that considering all elements will intensify unjustified litigation. In addition, the defendant may argue that the probable cause did not justify all elements and this will result in financial strain on the enforcement bodies (Houston, 2016).  Another point is that a police officer may establish a probable cause by analyzing past behavior to predict future behavior. Thus, it will be difficult to conceptualize or make abstract theory due to lack of specific facts for every element of a crime.

 

Question 2

Search and seizure are conducted to gather evidence for illegal activities. The Fourth Amendment states that individuals are protected against unreasonable searches.  However, it does not mean that the government agents should not conduct search and seizure but it means that they should conduct reasonable search and seizure.  Police are allowed to search and seizure either with search warrants or without (Jenkins, 2011). First, police officers must have a probable cause that a crime is committed. Then, after having a probable cause, they should receive a search warrant from the judge and after receiving the warrant, they should search and arrest the offender.  Arrest and search can be done with a warrant and this means that the police officer should obtain a warrant (either a written or a computer-memory warrant) from the judge and the warrant allows the police to enter a building to search for evidence (Jenkins, 2011). Note that the warrant contains specific items to be searched and the police cannot search what is not indicated in the warrant.

On the other hand, police officers can conduct a search and arrest without a warrant.  A seizure and arrest can be accomplished without a warrant but with a probable cause.  For example, some offenses may be less serious and obtaining a warrant may be unnecessary (Jenkins, 2011).  Another example is that the police officer may observe a crime being committed such as smelling marijuana-such cases may not require a warrant and the officer may conduct a search and arrest the criminal.  In general, a warrantless search occurs under exigent circumstance or in other words, it appears when the police officer has facts and evidence that a crime has happened and he or she must act immediately to prevent more harm (Jenkins, 2011).   Police may also prevent the destruction of evidence such as escape.

Advantages of search with a warrant are that there are facts and evidence supporting an arrest. Note that the officer has a reasonable basis that there is a probable cause and as a result, he or she is not civilly liable (Jenkins, 2011).  However, there is a disadvantage in that officers must highlight suspicious activities and they should not use their subjective beliefs (Jenkins, 2011).  They should provide proof and firsthand knowledge and as they obtain the warrant, and they should only search the property described in the warrant.

 The advantage of search and arrest without a warrant is that a police officer can conduct a search and seizure anytime as long as there is evidence of wrongdoing (Jenkins, 2011). In addition, a warrantless search limits the governmental power and in case of arrest, the suspect remains innocent until further investigations.

However, the disadvantage is that there might be a legal technicality or in other words, the suspect’s trial may be dismissed since the officer did not have a search warrant. The court may expect the officer to forward evidence and reasonable cause to the law but due to lack of evidence, the suspect may be considered innocent (Jenkins, 2011). Note that the law enforcement focuses on conduct or in other words, it is concerned with the evidence rather than the actual crime.

 Thus, it also important to understand that police arrest most of their arrests without a warrant due to reasons such as offense is committed in police officer's presence, police has a reasonable cause that an offense has been committed and the suspects have committed the crime (Jenkins, 2011).  Police officers also consider factors such as the suspect may flee or conceal himself, the suspect, may conceal evidence, and the suspect may cause more damage to the property or to another person.

 

Question 3

 Focusing on adult and juvenile law, it is important to understand that juvenile law or juvenile justice system addresses youths' criminal cases in juvenile-specific courts.  Another important point is that both youths and adults who commit crime face charges, both are protected from self-incrimination, and lawyers in both criminal courts can examine witnesses (Loeber & Farrington, 2012). However, there are legal/philosophical differences in terms of addressing law-violating behaviors. The major juvenile-adult boundaries are founded under the jurisdictional age, transfer laws, and blended sentencing (Loeber & Farrington, 2012). The first difference, which is jurisdictional age means that there is age limit-meaning that the minimum age for a juvenile is 17years. Youths who commit crime are handled in juvenile courts whereas an individual who are 18 years and above are handled in criminal courts. The other difference is transfer law such as the judicial waiver laws- juvenile court system have waiver jurisdiction whereas adults criminal courts have exclusive original jurisdiction. Another difference is that the juvenile justice system or law focus on keeping youths away from the destructive punishments and encouraging rehabilitation (Loeber & Farrington, 2012). The system views the adolescents as people who need assistance and believes that rather than punishing the adolescents, they should be provided with assistance and meet the best interest.   It is important to understand that in juvenile law, juveniles are considered as not guilty of the crime and for this reason, they are taken to the rehabilitation center to receive training and get reintegrated into society (Loeber & Farrington, 2012).  On the other hand, adult law focus on punishing the offender and protecting society.

 These differences affect the manner in which police must deal with a juvenile in that police must understand that even though youths are incarcerated, the latter is not an end in itself (Corriero, 2006). When punishing the young offenders, police must understand that the primary purpose of punishing is to redirect their lives.  Even though punitive sanctions are applied, it should be viewed as a strategy of modifying the child's deviant behavior (Corriero, 2006).  Note that when adolescents are incarcerated, after release, some will continue committing a crime in the society whereas some will utilize the guidance and skills gained to change their lives.  To allow adolescents to develop positive behaviors, the juvenile justice system should focus on rehabilitative approach or in other words, should focus on educating and providing therapeutic treatment.

 

 

 

 

Question 4

 

Under the Fifth Amendment, citizens are protected against double jeopardy, and against self-incrimination. Under the Sixth Amendment, citizens have right to counsel, among other rights (Miller & Jentz, 2013).  Protection against double jeopardy means that when a defendant is found not guilty, the government should not provide multiple punishments for the same crime.  This protection is important in that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense (Miller & Jentz, 2013). Another benefit is that the court establishes finality of criminal proceedings and the prosecutors' power is limited. The offender is protected from the financial and emotional burden that he or she could bear if tried twice. Protection against self-incrimination means that the accused should not be forced to testify. This protection is important as it protects one against torture from the police officers (Miller & Jentz, 2013). The third protection is right to counsel. This means that a criminal suspect should have an attorney who would counsel and advice the defendant and more importantly ensure that the defendant's rights are met (Miller & Jentz, 2013).   This protection is important since the accused has the freedom and defense and is protected from an unfair trial.

It is important to understand that if these protections and rights were completely ‘eroded', things would turn sour.  For instance, if the protection against double jeopardy was eroded,    individuals would face multiple prosecution (Miller & Jentz, 2013).  The government would harass the citizens and the citizens would suffer a lot due to the financial and emotional toll.   Note that the protection has limited the power of the prosecutors and this means that if the protection was eroded, the prosecutors would have a huge amount of power and would impose multiple punishments (Miller & Jentz, 2013).  On the protection against self-incrimination, citizens would be coerced or tortured by the police officers.  If they remain silent to police interrogations, the citizens would be considered guilty. Note that individuals would be intimidated by the police power and they would end up confessing anything (Miller & Jentz, 2013).  Last, the right to counsel plays a significant role in protecting an individual from unfair trial.  However, if the protection was eroded, the citizens would not be allowed to look for a lawyer to defend him or her (Miller & Jentz, 2013).  The court would conduct an unfair trial and the citizens would encounter many false convictions.

 

 

Question 5

Police patrol officers at Tucson neighborhood stopped a car for a vehicular infraction.  The officers suspected that individuals using the car were involved in criminal activity.  One officer approached Johnson who was at the back-seat and questioned him.  During the interrogation, the officer learned that Johnson had been in prison. The officer asked Johnson to come out of the car, and because he suspected that he had a hidden weapon, he frisked him and found a gun.  Johnson was taken to court and charged with possession of weapons. Johnson requested the judge to suppress the evidence but he was denied the request. The court held that the police officer did not violate the 4th amendment and thus, he was lawfully seized.

 Relative to the court decisions, my opinion is that the police officer did not violate the 4th amendment. This is because the search and arrest were under a reasonable ground or in other words, there was a reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed. The police relied on facts and circumstances to believe that the car occupants had committed a crime and that is why she stopped to question them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Harr, J. S., & Hess, K. M. (2008). Constitutional law and the criminal justice system. Belmont,

CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

 

Houston, C. (2016). Probable Cause Means Probable Cause: Why the Circuit Courts Should

Uniformly Require Officers to Establish Probable Cause for Every Element of an

Offense. U. Chi. Legal F., 809.

 

Jenkins, J. A. (2011). The American courts: A procedural approach. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and

Bartlett Publishers LLC.

 

 In Loeber, R., & In Farrington, D. P. (2012). From juvenile delinquency to adult crime: Criminal careers,

justice policy, and prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Corriero, M. A. (2006). Judging children as children: A proposal for a juvenile justice system.

Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

 

Miller, R. L. R., & Jentz, G. A. (2013). Fundamentals of business law: Summarized cases.

Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.

 

Findlaw. (2019). ARIZONA v. JOHNSON. Retrieved from: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/555/323.html