People V. Ulysis Parriss

.When it comes to getting arrested the police can do it two ways, they can do it with a warrant or without one. However both must have probable cause. The fourth amendment is what protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. The two important thing with this amendment is the requirements of probable cause to get a warrant and it how it prohibits unreasonable search and seizures. Probable cause is when an officer has reasonable facts that a crime has occurred or is about to occur, it can’t just be a suspicion. To arrest someone without a warrant the officer must have probable cause before he even approaches the suspect. The police cannot just have a suspicion and arrest or search you, even if they later find out that there suspicion was right like finding something illegal. This means probable cause is not outcome determinative. If this was to be done it’s a violation of the first amendment meaning it was an illegal search and arrest and all evidence and any confessions from the witness cannot be used. This happened in the case People v. Ulysis Parriss where a …show more content…
Diaz a cop saw some suspicious activity from defendant. Finally calling him over to him defendant kept putting his hand in front of his pocket where police notice a bulge in his pocket. Concerned for his safety fearing it might be a weapon the cop patted down the defendant to discover he was unarmed but he did have some vials. This case has to do with what I talked about earlier where the cops due to reasonable suspicion can pat you down. But they do not have the right to search you. The frisk was legal because the cop had reason to believe the defendant had a weapon. But once the cop saw that the defendant was unarmed the search should have stopped. By not doing so and continuing the cop violated the defendant’s fourth amendment rights. He did not have probable cause which is needed to do a full search. The case was dismissed due to the evidence being suppressed because of