Scenario:
On, July 8, 2012, Tammy Schrader was walking down a dark alley street when out of nowhere comes Tommy May. He approaches her and demands that she turn over her purse. Tammy refuses and Mr. May pulls out a gun and demands her purse again. Tammy starts to run when she is shot in back. Mr. May runs up and takes her purse runs down the alley and turns the corner. He empties out the contents of the purse and only removes the cash. He leaves the remainder of the purse content scattered on the ground and leaves the scene of the crime. A bystander (Mrs. Gibbs) calls police and she is rushed to the hospital in critical condition. Detectives Cruz and Hamrick arrive on the scene to take over the investigation. Cruz speaks with Mrs. Gibbs to …show more content…
May’s criminal past gave them reasonable suspicion to suspect him of the crime, since he had a history of criminal activity. Cruz and Hamrick have probable cause to suspect Mr. May. The Supreme Court as more than basic suspicion has defined probable cause. The detectives had probable cause to suspect Mr. May of the crime since; both the victim and the eyewitness identified him. Probable cause is required in order to protect the suspects Fourth Amendment right to the protection of an unreasonable search and seizure, if a search warrant, arrest and trial at a later date. Cruz and Hamrick request a search warrant for Mr. May’s home. The courts fulfill the four requirements of a valid search warrant consist of probable cause, supporting oath or affirmation, description of the place to be searched and the evidence to be seized and the signature of a magistrate. According to Carmen “The general rule is that a search or seizure is valid under the Fourth Amendment only if made with a warrant. Searches without a warrant may be valid; but they are the exception rather than the rule.” These are the required steps to prevent the defense attorney from invoking the Exclusionary rule during the …show more content…
May since, the crime was not committed with an officer present. An arrest warrant is a required step if said an officer of the courts did not witness crime. The requirements for an arrest warrant are: must state and describe the offense committed in this case the offense would be murder, defendant’s name, require that the offender be arrested and brought before a magistrate judge as soon as possible. Mr. May is required to have his Miranda rights read to him before he is questioned. The Miranda rights are his right to remain silent, anything he says can be used against him in the court of law, his right to an attorney, if he cannot afford one then one will be appointed for him, and his right to terminate the interview at any time. This will protect his Fifth Amendment right and avoid his defense attorney from invoking the Exclusionary rule during trial. According to Carmen (2010) “Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a criminal trial against the victim of the illegal search and seizure. The Constitutions does not require this remedy; it is a doctrine of judicial design.” Mr. May’s invokes his Fifth Amendment to remain silent and request an attorney; at this point Cruz and Hamrick have no choice but to hold him over to see a magistrate to a preliminary hearing. During the preliminary hearing the judge will decide if there was enough probable cause to arrest and
On, July 8, 2012, Tammy Schrader was walking down a dark alley street when out of nowhere comes Tommy May. He approaches her and demands that she turn over her purse. Tammy refuses and Mr. May pulls out a gun and demands her purse again. Tammy starts to run when she is shot in back. Mr. May runs up and takes her purse runs down the alley and turns the corner. He empties out the contents of the purse and only removes the cash. He leaves the remainder of the purse content scattered on the ground and leaves the scene of the crime. A bystander (Mrs. Gibbs) calls police and she is rushed to the hospital in critical condition. Detectives Cruz and Hamrick arrive on the scene to take over the investigation. Cruz speaks with Mrs. Gibbs to …show more content…
May’s criminal past gave them reasonable suspicion to suspect him of the crime, since he had a history of criminal activity. Cruz and Hamrick have probable cause to suspect Mr. May. The Supreme Court as more than basic suspicion has defined probable cause. The detectives had probable cause to suspect Mr. May of the crime since; both the victim and the eyewitness identified him. Probable cause is required in order to protect the suspects Fourth Amendment right to the protection of an unreasonable search and seizure, if a search warrant, arrest and trial at a later date. Cruz and Hamrick request a search warrant for Mr. May’s home. The courts fulfill the four requirements of a valid search warrant consist of probable cause, supporting oath or affirmation, description of the place to be searched and the evidence to be seized and the signature of a magistrate. According to Carmen “The general rule is that a search or seizure is valid under the Fourth Amendment only if made with a warrant. Searches without a warrant may be valid; but they are the exception rather than the rule.” These are the required steps to prevent the defense attorney from invoking the Exclusionary rule during the …show more content…
May since, the crime was not committed with an officer present. An arrest warrant is a required step if said an officer of the courts did not witness crime. The requirements for an arrest warrant are: must state and describe the offense committed in this case the offense would be murder, defendant’s name, require that the offender be arrested and brought before a magistrate judge as soon as possible. Mr. May is required to have his Miranda rights read to him before he is questioned. The Miranda rights are his right to remain silent, anything he says can be used against him in the court of law, his right to an attorney, if he cannot afford one then one will be appointed for him, and his right to terminate the interview at any time. This will protect his Fifth Amendment right and avoid his defense attorney from invoking the Exclusionary rule during trial. According to Carmen (2010) “Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a criminal trial against the victim of the illegal search and seizure. The Constitutions does not require this remedy; it is a doctrine of judicial design.” Mr. May’s invokes his Fifth Amendment to remain silent and request an attorney; at this point Cruz and Hamrick have no choice but to hold him over to see a magistrate to a preliminary hearing. During the preliminary hearing the judge will decide if there was enough probable cause to arrest and