CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION TO ARREST & SEARCHThe Fourth Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION TO ARREST & SEARCHThe Fourth Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

PROBABLE CAUSEAbsolute CertaintyPossibility / HunchProof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

PROBABLE CAUSE

In laymans terms, how will you define Probable Cause for a jury. A reasonably prudent person would believe: that a crime has been committedthat the person to be arrested has committed that crime

PROBABLE CAUSE

Test for Probable Cause The focus in determining probable cause is not on the certainty that a crime was committed, but on the likelihood of it. Dont have to be RIGHT; but, you do have to be REASONABLE

Indications of Criminal Activity That May Contribute to a Finding of PROBABLE CAUSE

Suspect Demeanor or Reaction to OfficerFlight is one factor to be considered.Sibron v. New York (1968) ~ Deliberately furtive actions and flight at the approach of strangers or law officers are strong indicia of mens rea (a guilty mind), and when coupled with specific knowledge on the part of the officer relating the suspect to the evidence of the crime, they are proper factors to be considered in the decision to make an arrest.

Indications of Criminal Activity That May Contribute to a Finding of PROBABLE CAUSE

Suspect Demeanor or Reaction to OfficerFlight in itself will not independently support a probable cause finding.Wong Son v US (1963) ~ officers responded to a suspect's home who was believed to be selling heroin. When the suspect answered the door he turned and ran with officers in pursuit. The court found that his subsequent seizure was invalid because officers did not have probable cause to arrest him simply because he ran away.

POLICE AUTHORITY TO DETAINLooking at the right of police officers to stop a suspect under circumstances in which there was insufficient grounds for an actual arrestRequires REASONABLE ARTICULABLE SUSPICIONThis does NOT authorize police to detain anyone on mere SUSPICION or a HUNCH!

Beyond Reasonable DoubtClear and ConvincingPreponderanceProbable CauseHunches or Whims ~ cant articulateInvestigationTrial_____

POLICE AUTHORITY TO DETAINTerry v. Ohio, 1968In Terry, the US Supreme Court upheld the authority of the police to stop or detain (or seize) a person where the officer observes unusual conduct which leads the officer reasonably to conclude, in light of his/her experience (including training), that criminal activity may be afoot.Terry Stop vs. Terry Frisk

POLICE AUTHORITY TO DETAINTerry v. Ohio, 1968A Terry Stop - an investigative detention of a suspect. Not a search! Officers can conduct a Terry Stop with reasonable (articulable/explainable) suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Officers can stop a suspect and investigate that person for a reasonable period of time. Even though its not a formal arrest, it is a seizure under the 4th Amendment.

Reasonable Suspicion + Armed & Dangerous =

Terry requires an officer to articulate a reasonable belief that a suspect is armed and poses a threat before the officer is permitted to conduct a limited Pat Down of the suspects outer clothing.Just because I can Terry Stop someone doesnt automatically give me the right to frisk them for a weapon.

CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION TO ARREST & SEARCHThe Fourth Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION TO ARREST & SEARCHThe Fourth Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Frisking Containers An officer who finds a closed container within lunging distance of a suspect who is being lawfully stopped and frisked, may open the container to see if it contains a weapon if: in light of the officers experience and training the item could contain a weapon, and the container is NOT locked

POLICE AUTHORITY TO DETAINTerry v. Ohio, 1968Search or Frisk is going to be limited to searching for hard objects That the suspect could use to hurt the officer like guns, pocket knives, mace, clubs, Not limited to just those things we ordinarily think are weapons It could also be things like car keys or pens because those could hurt an officer as well

POLICE AUTHORITY TO DETAINTerry v. Ohio, 1968While an officer may want to conduct a frisk for officer safety purposes, the law requires more than that. Reasonable suspicion that someones presently armed and dangerous is just what it sounds like, but most importantly, the officer has to have facts to support that conclusion.

POLICE AUTHORITY TO DETAINTerry v. Ohio, 1968Look, Feel, Crush and Twist FLETCYou can manipulate hard objects as much as necessary to ensure they are not weapons! You may NOT manipulate soft objects that could not be a weapon.If your actions are reasonable and executed only to determine whether the suspect possesses a weapon, then the Terry Frisk is constitutionally proper

POLICE AUTHORITY TO DETAINTerry v. Ohio, 1968Example: Can you conduct a Terry Stop of someone if there is reasonable (articulable/explainable) suspicion he is in possession of a stolen credit card? The officer will want to conduct a brief detention to investigate further.Is there anything about being in possession of stolen credit cards that would automatically lead you to believe the person is armed and dangerous?Without additional facts: a Terry Stop is authorized, but not a Terry Frisk

POLICE AUTHORITY TO DETAINTerry v. Ohio, 1968Offenses like drug distribution or burglary just go with weapons.Courts have held that people who sell drugs most often carry weapons to protect their money and product.Burglars need burglary tools - things to break windows, screw drivers, and crow bars to pry doors open.In Terry the detective had reasonable suspicion to believe an armed robbery was afoot.

Reasons For The Frisk: Articulating Your Reasonable SuspicionPersons AppearancePersons ActionsPrior Knowledge of the PersonLocationTime of DayLaw Enforcement PurposesCompanionPOLICE AUTHORITY TO DETAINTerry v. Ohio, 1968

Scenario #1A male comes into your agency to retrieve property from his impounded vehicle. You run a warrant check and learn that there is an outstanding felony arrest warrant for the male in an adjacent jurisdiction. You arrest the male; and, incident to the arrest, confiscate meth and a firearm from his person.

Scenario #1Later on, you discover that the warrant had been recalled nearly three (3) months ago; however, the other Agency, unbeknownst to you, forgot to pull the warrant. Since a police agency made the mistake and another police agency will be benefitting from the mistake by the admission of the evidence, should this evidence be excluded?

Scenario #1When police mistakes leading to an unlawful search are the result of isolated negligence attenuated from the search rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, the exclusionary rule does not apply. Herring v. U.S.,(Jan 14, 2009)

U.S. v. Quinney, October 01, 2009Under the inevitable-discovery doctrine, if the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means, then the deterrence rationale of the exclusionary rule has so little basis that the evidence should be received.

U.S. v. Quinney, October 01, 2009However, the inevitable-discovery doctrine does not permit police, who have probable cause to believe a home contains contraband, to enter a home illegally, conduct a warrantless search and escape the exclusionary rule on the ground that the police could have obtained a warrant yet chose not to do so.

The Exclusionary RuleThe fact that a search or arrest was unreasonable does not necessarily mean that the exclusionary rule applies. Illinois v. Gates, (1983). The [exclusionary] rule is not an individual right and applies only where its deterrent effect outweighs the substantial cost of letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free. U.S. v. Leon, (1984)

Florida v. Powell, U.S. 1898, Feb 23, 2010 Miranda warnings that failed to expressly state that the suspect had a right to have a lawyer present during the questioning, but advised that he had the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions and the right to exercise that right at anytime you want during this interview, adequately conveyed his rights under Miranda.

Maryland v. Shatzer, 1899, (Feb 24, 2010)A break in Miranda custody of fourteen (14) days provides ample time for the suspect to get re-acclimated to his normal life, to consult with friends and family and counsel, and shake off any residual coercive effects of prior custody.

Maryland v. Shatzer, 1899, (Feb 24, 2010)If a suspect invokes counsel under Miranda while in custody and is then released, nothing prohibits law enforcement from approaching, asking questions, and obtaining a statement without the Miranda lawyer present from the suspect who remains out of custody.

U.S. v. Panak, 6th Circuit (Jan 09, 2009) Should the officers subjective knowledge determine when to advise Miranda?An officers knowledge of an individuals guilt may bear upon the custody issue - NOT because the officer possesses incriminating evidence but because he HAS conveyed it and thus has used the information to create a hostile, coercive, freedom-inhibiting atmosphere.

U.S. v. Panak, 6th Circuit (Jan 09, 2009) That is why such knowledge is relevant only if it was somehow manifested to the individual under interrogation and it would have affected how a reasonable person in that position would perceive his or her freedom to leave.

AUTHORITY TO ENTER: WARRANTLESS SEARCH & ARRESTFresh Pursuit (Hot Pursuit)Immediate Destruction of EvidencePublic Safety and/or WelfarePrevent Escape of a Suspect

MICHIGAN v. FISHER, 2009Police officers responded to a complaint of a disturbance A couple directed them to a residence where a man was "going crazy" Officers found a household in considerable chaos: a pickup truck in the driveway with its front smashed, damaged fence posts along the side of the property, and three broken house windows, the glass still on the ground outside

MICHIGAN v. FISHER, 2009Officers also noticed blood on the hood of the pickup and on clothes inside of it, as well as on one of the doors to the houseThrough a window, the officers could see respondent, Jeremy Fisher, inside the house, screaming and throwing things. The back door was locked, and a couch had been placed to block the front door.

MICHIGAN v. FISHER, 2009They saw that Fisher had a cut on his hand, and they asked him whether he needed medical attention. Fisher ignored these questions and demanded, with accompanying profanity, that the officers go to get a search warrantOfficer Goolsby then pushed the front door partway open and ventured into the house. Through the window of the open door he saw Fisher pointing a long gun at him. Officer Goolsby withdrew

MICHIGAN v. FISHER, 2009Fisher was charged under Michigan law with assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felonyMichigan Supreme Court: Search did not meet the Exigent Circumstance requirement since Fisher was alone and the officers did NOT really believe he needed immediate medical assistance.Is the search a violation under the 4th Amendment?

MICHIGAN v. FISHER, 2009It would be objectively reasonable to believe that Fisher's projectiles might have a human target (perhaps a spouse or a child), or that Fisher would hurt himself in the course of his rage.

MICHIGAN v. FISHER, 2009Officers do not need ironclad proof of "a likely serious, life-threatening" injury to invoke the emergency aid exception.Moreover, even if Goolsby did not subjectively believe, that Fisher or someone else was seriously injured, the test is NOT what Officer Goolsby believedbut whether there was "an objectively reasonable basis for believing" that medical assistance was needed, or persons were in danger

Mobile Conveyance Exception 2 requirements to search

Must be probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime or contraband is located in the vehicle to be searched.

The vehicle be readily mobile.

Carroll v. United States (1925)If an officer stops a car based on probable cause and conducts a search in order to preserve evidence due to the automobiles mobility, the search may be conducted without a warrant.

Chambers v. Maroney (1970)A warrantless search of a vehicle is valid despite the fact that a warrant could have been procured without endangering the preservation of evidence.

United States v. Ross(1982)If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.

Maryland v. Dyson(1999)Officers are not required to obtain a search warrant for a mobile conveyance even if they have time to secure one.

California v. Carney(1985)A motor home is treated as a vehicle, rather than a dwelling, if it is immediately mobile.

California v. Acevedo (1991)In a search extending to a container located in an automobile, police may search the container without a warrant where they have probable cause to believe that it holds contraband or evidence.Wyoming v. Houghton (1999) The mobile conveyance exception to the 4th Amendments warrant requirement allows the officers to search passengers containers.

OHIO v. MOORE (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 47. The smell of marijuana, alone, by a person qualified to recognize the odor, is sufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a search. There need be no additional factors to corroborate the suspicion of the presence of marijuana.

OHIO v. HOWARD, (2008) Ohio-2706 In Ohio v. Farris, the Ohio Supreme Court fleshed out the plain-smell doctrine by holding that the odor of burned marijuana in the passenger compartment of a vehicle does not, standing alone, establish probable cause for a warrantless search of the trunk of the vehicle

OHIO v. HOWARD, (2008) Ohio-2706 Here, the officers, who were trained and experienced in detecting the odor of unburned marijuana, both testified that they had smelled a strong odor of unburned marijuana emanating from the car, not just a light odor. But, more specifically, each officer specifically testified that the odor of the unburned marijuana was coming from the trunk of the car.

U.S. v. Foster, No.02-3859 (7/20/2004)Accordingly, when the officers detected the smell of marijuana coming from Fosters vehicle, this provided them probable cause to search the vehicle without a search warrant. U.S. v. Elkins, 300 F.3d 38 (6th Cir. 2002) This therefore turned a lawful Terry stop into a lawful search.

Arizona v. Gant (April 21, 2009)Police may search a vehicle incident to the arrest of an occupant ONLY in two circumstances: when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search (the safety rationale); or when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime might be found in the vehicle (the evidentiary rationale).

U.S. v. Lopez, 6th Circuit (June 01, 2009) Defendant was not within reaching distance of his vehicles passenger compartment at the time of the search, he was handcuffed in the back seat of the patrol car by then. No reason to think the vehicle contained evidence of the offense of arrest, since that offense was reckless driving.

U.S. v. Lopez, 6th Circuit (June 01, 2009) The 73 grams of crack cocaine, a set of digital scales, and a Glock .40 caliber handgun loaded with ten rounds of ammunition which formed the basis of his conviction for possession with the intent to distribute and for carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime are inadmissible. Defendants conviction is vacated.

U.S. v Vinton, D.C. (Feb. 5, 2010)Maxima speeding with window tint violation.Observed a law enforcement blue line sticker on the car.The officer asked Vinton if he worked in law enforcement, and he replied personal security.Observed knife with a five and a half inch sheath on the back seat.

U.S. v Vinton, D.C. (Feb. 5, 2010)The officer asked Vinton what the knife was for; he said he used it when he went fishing with his grandfather.The officer removed the knife from the car and put it out of reach on Vintons roof and asked if there were any other weapons in the car.Vinton replied that there was not.The officer returned to his police vehicle to write a citation.

U.S. v Vinton, D.C. (Feb. 5, 2010)The officer (with MPD) then returned to Vinton and told him that he was going to search his car for weapons. The officer again asked if there were any other weapons in the car and Vinton replied there was not. The officer asked about weapons again and Vinton replied not that I know of. The officer had Vinton exit his car and he handcuffed him, while telling him he was not under arrest.

U.S. v Vinton, D.C. (Feb. 5, 2010)Officer found a butterfly knife under the front passenger-side floor mat, as well as 2 cans of mace and a bag of Styrofoam earplugs; and a locked briefcase that was on the backseat. The briefcase isnt mine.The officer then pried open the locked briefcase and searched it incident to arrest. Briefcase contained three bags of ecstasy, three pistol magazines, a fighting knife, and a loaded .45 pistol

U.S. v Vinton, D.C. (Feb. 5, 2010)The Fourth Amendment issues :Whether the officer violated the Fourth Amendment in conducting the limited search (frisk) of Vintons vehicle for weapons?Whether the officer had probable cause to arrest Vinton for the weapons charge that led to the search incident to arrest?Whether the officer was justified under Arizona v. Gant to search the briefcase incident to arrest?

U.S. v Vinton, D.C. (Feb. 5, 2010)An officer can order the driver out of his car and conduct a limited search of the passenger compartment for weapons if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the driver is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons inside the car. Michigan v. Long

U.S. v Vinton, D.C. (Feb. 5, 2010)Based on the totality of the circumstances, the court held that the officerhad a reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts, that Vinton was armed and dangerousThus, he properly searched (frisked) the passenger compartment of Vintons car for additional weapons.

U.S. v Vinton, D.C. (Feb. 5, 2010)Since Vinton was handcuffed the search incident to his arrest cannot be justified under the safety rationale from Gant. Thus, the court had to consider whether the evidentiary rationale from Gant was met during the search of briefcase.Since the officer had already found two knives, two cans of mace, and ear plugs, it was reasonable to believe that additional weapons might be found in the briefcase.

U.S. v Vinton, D.C. (Feb. 5, 2010)Because it was reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle, [the officer] had the right to search the passenger compartment of Vintons car and any containers therein, including the locked briefcase

Ohio v. Jones, 121 Ohio St. 3d (2009)A law enforcement officer who personally observes a traffic violation while outside the officers statutory territorial jurisdiction has probable cause to make a traffic stop; the stop is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Consent Search1st - The consent must be voluntarily givenConsent cannot be coerced, by explicit or implicit means, by implied threat or covert force2nd Person has authority over the place to be searchedAn individual may limit the scope of any consent

U.S. v. Everett, April 06, 2010 6th CIRCUITThere is no categorical ban on suspicionless, unrelated questioning that may minimally prolong a traffic stop. The proper inquiry is whether the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop indicates that the duration of the stop as a whole including any prolongation due to suspicionless, unrelated questioning was reasonable.

U.S. v. Everett, April 06, 2010 ~ 6th CIRCUITThe overarching consideration is the officers diligence in ascertaining whether the suspected traffic violation occurred, and, if necessary, issuing a ticket. Some amount of questioning relevant only to ferreting out unrelated criminal conduct is permissible.

U.S. v. Hardin, 6th Circuit Aug 25, 2008Hardin out on parole was now wanted on new felony warrantOfficer Kingsbury contacted landlord and told him of Hardins warrant and a 1990s shootout with policeLandlord agreed to enter apartment using a water leak as a ruseLandlord was given consent to enter the apartment and saw a male that fit Hardins description

U.S. v. Hardin, 6th Circuit Aug 25, 2008Hardin abruptly arrested and firearm found where he was sittingOfficer Turner, conducted a sweep of the apartments other rooms and found firearms in a shoebox under a bed

U.S. v. Hardin, 6th Circuit Aug 25, 2008To demonstrate that a person was acting as an agent of the government: First, the police must have instigated, encouraged or participated in the search andSecond, the individual must have engaged in the search with the intent of assisting the police in their investigative efforts.

U.S. v. Hardin, 6th Circuit Aug 25, 2008In sum, because the officers urged the apartment manager to investigate and enter the apartment, and the manager, , had no reason or duty to enter the apartment, we hold that the manager was acting as an agent of the government.

U.S. v Taylor, (6th Cir. 2010)Officers received a tip that Taylor, a wanted fugitive, was staying in Arnett's apartment.However, she allowed the officers to search. The officers found Taylor in a bedroom, wearing only his underwear.Arnett then gave verbal and written consent to a more thorough search. The officers did not seek consent from Taylor.

U.S. v Taylor, (6th Cir. 2010)In a closet, officers found a shoe box labeled for men's Nike shoes, covered by an item of mens clothing. The officers searched the box and found a weapon, ammunition and Taylor's jail identification bracelet from his last stay in a county hospitality suite.Should the court suppress the evidence found in the shoe box? Why?

U.S. v Taylor, (6th Cir. 2010)Arnett would not reasonably appear to have authority over the shoe box. The officers should have asked further questions about control of the room, closet and shoebox.

Ohio v. Smith, (Dec 15, 2009)Antwaun Smith was arrested on drug charges after responding to cell phone call made by a crack user acting as a police informant. During the arrest, police searched Smith and found a cell phone on his person. Later, police recovered bags containing crack cocaine at the scene. Officers subsequently searched the contents of Smiths phone without a search warrant or his consent.

Ohio v. Smith, (Dec 15, 2009)They discovered call records and stored numbers that confirmed prior calls between Smiths phone and the informants phone number. Smith was charged with possession of cocaine, trafficking in cocaine, tampering with evidence and two counts of possession of criminal tools. Should the evidence obtained from the cell phone be suppressed?

Ohio v. Smith, (Dec 15, 2009)when the search is not necessary to protect the safety of law enforcement officers and there are no exigent circumstances police must obtain a search warrant for the phones data

U.S. v. Washington, 6th Circuit July 22, 2009Wilson told Officer Rock that there were two people in the unit. She did not request his help or say they were trespassing.Officer Rock claims that his unspoken assumption at the time was that any visitors were trespassing because the landlord had previously told him that.At Officer Rocks request, Wilson agreed to let the police search the apartment. Rock stated he did not believe she had the authority to consent to the search.

U.S. v. Washington, 6th Circuit July 22, 2009Washington was among those who were immediately visible, and he became belligerent and told Rock that he was not allowed in the apartment. Officer Rock testified that drug paraphernalia in the living room was in plain view once he was inside the apartment.

U.S. v. Washington, 6th Circuit July 22, 2009Officer Rock asked the defendant if he had anything illegal in his possession.You cant search me. Officer Rock informed Washington that he was suspected of criminal trespass and would be patted down. (Good Frisk?)Washington then stated, Im dirty. .357 handgun and crack pipe.

U.S. v. Washington, 6th Circuit July 22, 2009Youngs landlord continued accepting rent after he discovered Washington lived on the premises and after complaints of possible drug activity in the apartment.Did Washington have R.E.P. in his uncles apartment?Did Youngs failure to pay rent on a timely basis in December 2006, the month of the search, diminish his, and Washingtons R.E.P.?

U.S. v. Washington, 6th Circuit July 22, 2009The landlords mere authority to evict a person cannot of itself deprive that person of an objectively reasonable expectation of privacyA search of a home conducted without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment with only . . . a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.

U.S. v. Washington, 6th Circuit July 22, 2009An ongoing criminal trespass, on its own, does not constitute an exigency that overrides the warrant requirement.Is there a true immediacy to forget the warrant requirement?

U.S. v. Brooks, 6th Circuit Feb 05, 2010 2 LEOs executing arrest warrantsBrooks indicted for trafficking months earlier answered the door and was arrested.Officers smelled a strong odor of marijuana smoke from the residence.Brooks indicated that he needed to put on a pair of shoes and Officer Rhoades accompanied Brooks to a bedroom to get shoes.

U.S. v. Brooks, 6th Circuit Feb 05, 2010 In the bedroom, Rhoades observed an ashtray that contained marijuana seeds. Officers also conducted a patdown search of Brooks and found $1,000 in cash in his back pocketOfficers took Brooks out of the residence and froze the scene and obtained a search warrant based on marijuana odor and seeds.

U.S. v. Brooks, 6th Circuit Feb 05, 2010 Officers noticed scales and other drug paraphernalia items in plain view but failed to put that information into the search warrant.The district court found in favor of Brooks; the odor of marijuana and the presence of marijuana seeds are, at best, evidence of a minor misdemeanor, for which Brooks could not be arrested under Ohio law.

U.S. v. Brooks, 6th Circuit Feb 05, 2010 The magistrate is not required to assume that the defendant has just smoked his last bit of marijuana immediately before the officers arrived. Instead, it is fairly probable under these facts that where there is smoke, there may be more there to smoke.

Reasonableness of the use of force applied must be judged from the perspective of the REASONABLE OFFICERThe test is one of OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS. Whether the officers actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivationGraham v. Connor (1989)

USE OF DEADLY FORCEThe use of deadly force to prevent the escape of ALL felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonableWhen a suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do soA police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous felony suspect by shooting him dead

USE OF DEADLY FORCEScott v. Harris, 2007

LIABILITY FROM VEHICLE OPERATIONJune 13, 2009

Moldowan v. City of Warren, 6th Circuit (July 01, 2009)All witnesses police officers as well as lay witness are absolutely immune from civil liability based on their trial testimony in judicial proceedings. As with any witness, police officers enjoy absolute immunity for any testimony delivered at adversarial judicial proceedings no matter how egregious or perjurious that testimony was alleged to have been

Law Enforcemnt EthicsPolice must obey the law while enforcing the law because in the end, life and liberty can be as much endangered from illegal methods used to convict those thought to be criminals as from the actual criminals themselves. Spano v. New York, 360 U.S.315 (1959)

**********Levels Of EvidenceBefore we discuss the arrest in detail we have to examine different levels of evidence.Discuss the following levels of evidenceBeyond a reasonable doubt (not any doubt)Clear and convincing (some civil trials/inevitable discovery)Preponderance ( Greater weight of the evidence/civil trials: more than 50% showing required)Probable cause Reasonable suspicion (Must be articulable)Hunches or whims (can't articulate)Stimuli (what the senses capture)

****************