LSTD400

reply back to this  150 words

1. A police officer must have probable cause to arrest an individual. What is probable cause? How much probable cause is needed to secure an arrest or search warrant?

Probable cause is a vague term that comes from the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution.  The Constitution does not define probable cause nor does it set any limits.  Over the past decade’s courts have been modernizing decisions through various cases such as Riley v. California (2014).  Arrests and search warrants both require probable cause (Rutledge, 2010). The standard for probable cause is also vague and is much lower than the level of proof for a conviction in court.  According to Rutledge probable cause has hindered lower court abilities in recognizing that the officer has a wider view in the field than the judge has in the courtroom.  Search Warrants typically require a probable cause affidavit and they are written in such a way that is so specific the officer it teetering on broken glass if he or she breaks away from what is in the affidavit.  For example, you would not be searching the second story of a home for a stolen airplane. 

1. What is the exclusionary rule? Discuss the exceptions to the exclusionary rule.

     The exclusionary rule does exactly what it sounds like.  If evidence is obtained illegally by law enforcement then it shall be suppressed in court.  There are exceptions to this rule that have been created since the early 1980’s (Vaughn, 2001).  One exception is that illegally seized evidence can be used in court as long as it was taken completely independent of the illegal actions (Segura v. U.S, 1984).  Another exception is one that is known as the “good faith exception”.  U.S. v. Leon (1984) created the exception that technical errors in reasonably obtained search warrants shall be admissible.  Furthermore, just because a warrant is technically invalid, if an officer believes it to be valid then the evidence shall not be suppressed (Leon, Massachusetts v. Shepard (1984).  Technical errors may well be the most common mistake among suppression requests being denied.

1. Discuss the difference in a stop and frisk and an arrest. What are the requirements for an officer to conduct a “stop and frisk”?

     Stop and frisk (“Terry Stop” from Terry v. Ohio (1967) is a tool that police utilize across the country in an attempt to deter and prevent crime.  Immediately stop and frisk took on a brutal onslaught of publicity that claims it creates inequality, racial divides, and biased policing.  The consequences of stop and frisk policing are being replied by some large agencies completely altering the training and methodology of the department; such as, the New York City Police Department and their 21st Century Initiative.  Stop and frisk may be able to align itself within intelligence led policing practice and community policing methods (Sewell, 2018).  The main difference between stop and frisk and an arrest is that an arrest has the requirement of probable cause while stop and frisk requires reasonable suspicion.  Stop and frisk should be a very brief process and there is an element of control that the officer has by detaining an individual, even in traffic stops.  Different states have adopted different policies concerning stop and frisk and agencies have aligned agendas with the practice in some areas.    

Luke Baunack

References

Rutledge, D. (2010). Understanding Probable Cause. Retrieved from http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2015/09/reasonable-suspicion.aspx

Sewell, A. A. (2018). Stop and frisk: The Use and Abuse of a Controversial Policing Tactic. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 47(2), 236-238. doi:10.1177/0094306118755396ss

Vaughn, M. S. (2001). Exclusionary rule. Criminal Justic