Browse through the curated selection of our completed assessments to get a sense of the quality and depth of our work. Whether you need guidance, inspiration, or just want to evaluate our work, this page is your go-to resource.
Yes, the police conducted a lawful search and seizure. Under the “Terry” rule, an officer who has a reasonable suspicion that a criminal activity may be “afoot,” they can stop and frisk a person for weapons so as to protect the officer’s safety. The officers observed a person matching the height and weight of the suspects in the electronic store thefts, and further observed that the person leaving the electronic store was wearing a heavy overcoat on a hot sunny day. This would likely be sufficient for reasonable suspicion; thus, the stop and frisk were lawful.
The suspect Fourth Amendment rights were violated because a “Terry” stop and frisk itself must be no more intrusive than that which is necessary to discover a weapon to protect the officer’s safety. Neither an iPod nor a digital camera feels like any sort of weapon, thus the officer should not have removed them. Nevertheless, if the .22 caliber gun was discovered first, this could have provided probable cause for a crime to be under way, and thereby justify a more extensive search. Although it is not clear from the facts whether or not carrying a concealed weapon is legal in Phoenix, AZ, if it is not then that would make the remaining search legal, because carrying the weapon would confirm a criminal act.
The stop and frisk was reasonable, given the subject’s odd behavior of wearing a heavy coat on a hot day. As discussed previously, probable cause would only arise if the concealed carry was criminal in the jurisdiction. The facts do not permit an analysis of this factor. I assumed the act is unlawful and probable cause existed. The main evidence that led me to the conclusion is the existence of the .22 caliber gun concealed on the subject. The arrest of the first suspect was conducted in a proper manner there was probable cause and the suspect agreed to the search. In the second arrest the police acted in an improper manner when they insisted to enter the home of the suspect and continually search while a minor was present. The police should have not entered the home until the suspect returned.
The police issue the Miranda rights after discovery of the incriminating evidence. The police issued the Miranda rights correctly. As soon as a person is “in custody” as a suspect in a crime, they must be Mirandized. It is very important for the police to read a person their Miranda rights. When a suspect is not informed of their Miranda rights, they can have any confession suppressed. The police were able to conduct a lawful interrogation on the suspect. The suspect was issued a search warrant and a warrant for his arrest. The suspect was also Mirandized immediately upon arrest and taken down to police station. The suspect did not request an attorney.
Dempsey, J.S. & Forst, L.S. (2005). Introduction to policing (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
All orders at our writing service are delivered exceptionally for research purposes.
