What Is Probable Cause?

Good Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    This hearing determines if there is sufficient evidence that exists against an offender to continue the criminal justice process. The judge in this step searches for a probable cause to prove a crime was committed and the suspect accomplished doing so. Nevertheless, if a probable cause is determined, the accused suspect is held for trial on the information, which results in formal charging. In federal cases and other states, there is a grand jury that is empanelled to determine if there is enough evidence to file indictment charges against the suspect with the crimes. However if the grand jury finds there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial it issues a true bill, if not it issues a no bill and he or she is filtered out of the criminal justice network (Appalachian State University, n.d).…

    • 1283 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    A search and seizure have to be within reason, with a descriptive warrant explaining exactly what is to be searched and seized, signed by a judge. Search and seizure without a warrant can be conducted if the citizen volunteer permission. The Fourth Amendment is used when one feels their rights are offended. The Fifth Amendment is the protection against the incrimination of self. Within a criminal case, the individual cannot be a…

    • 452 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This information gave officers’ probable cause for an arrest. In this case the two suspects were arrested in the commission of a felony. Suspect number one was charged with breaking and entering an occupied residence. Suspect number two was charged with breaking and entering, and grand theft auto. Although an arrest takes away a person’s fundamental right to freedom, police must still follow proper protocol to carry out a legal arrest.…

    • 1239 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Reasoning: Record of hell did you do some system by stating facts and points of what is art on the day of them attempt to arrest. The justification of the officer going to Serving a warrant was reasonable cause. The officer followed the due process while trying to apprehend the suspect. the court had to determine was it necessary to pursue the individual that was swinging from arrest. The court also had to ensure that what the officer action was when the shots on the moving vehicle was justifiable.…

    • 1238 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Judge Doe is excluding evidence during trial yet the prosecution asked the judge for an Evidentiary Hearing so they can argue their case on why the evidence should be allowed. The defense will also have their chance to argue their case on why the evidence should not be allowed to be presented at trial. The judge agreed to an Evidentiary Hearing but our argument will quickly be under the exclusionary rule because the police knowingly violated the client 's Fourth Amendment Rights. The exclusionary rule "is a judicial rule that makes evidence obtained in violation of the U.S. Constitution, state or federal laws, or court rules inadmissible" (Anderson & Gardner, p. 214). Therefore, by law, the evidence excludes any evidence…

    • 1291 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    To start with the first line of the Miranda statement “You have the right to remain silent”. The 5thAmendment of the Constitution states that a person shall not “be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. This includes oral or written confessions during questioning. An individual cannot self incriminate. This is important because interrogations are stressful for any individual whether they are guilty or innocent.…

    • 1883 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Before the questioning starts, the suspect has the right to receive legal advice from their lawyer or from a solicitor on duty or from the Defence Solicitor Call Centre (DSCC) if they cannot afford legal aid . The PACE Code C section 11.1 highlights the caution that every interview proceeded by the police should take place in the police station. Hereby, the police 's limitation is that the suspect can refuse to answer questions by the police outside the police station. The most challenging is the right of silence that might restrict the police to gain evidence relevant to the suspect 's mental state. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 constitutes that a suspect has the right to not answer questions before, during and after the interview.…

    • 1001 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Police Arrest

    • 1105 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Police officers are not obligated to arrest every single violator of criminal law. They get to make the decision on if they want to arrest the suspected individual or not. In other words the term arrest means to take an individual into custody and they do not have the option to leave. There are many factors that could affect the decision of the arrest. The two most essential factors that help determine whether the police should make the arrest are first, is to determine the seriousness of the suspects offense and second, determining the quality of the specific evidence that is used against the suspected individual.…

    • 1105 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Wilson Vs Arkansas

    • 1024 Words
    • 5 Pages

    In order to obtain a warrant one must have a neutral magistrate to determine if there is pc before suspects are arrested. A sworn affidavit to show that the facts lead to pc. And the name of the person getting arrested to satisfy the particularity requirement so the defendant can be identified with reasonable certainty. Officers don’t have to get warrants in homes as if it is an emergency. In this case, once Ray declared that he was going to kill Janay.…

    • 1024 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Mapp V. Ohio Case Study

    • 1223 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Mapp v. Ohio set the standard for the exclusionary rule, meaning that the States now too fell under the rule. Police today cannot search or seize any items with a search warrant. Furthermore, because of the case of Katz v. United States, the police are required to demonstrate “probable cause” for any investigative activity that is in violation of a citizen’s expectation of privacy. Today law enforcement still has to be granted a warrant to search through a person’s belongings. Although if a person is openly in violation of the law and the evidence is in plain view, a police officer can perform a search, without a warrant.…

    • 1223 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays