Hypothetical

9 Pages 2319 Words

The first issue in the paper is that “several males who were seen on the streets wearing dark clothing, and who appeared to the officers to be suspicious looking were taken in to custody for questioning”. This issue raises the question; is the several males looking suspicious enough probable cause for the officers to make an arrest, does it violate the male’s rights of the fourth amendment? The fourth amendment states “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” (Inciardi p. 188). An arrest may be made in two ways: with a warrant or without a warrant. In this case it was without a warrant. To make an arrest the officer must have probable cause and there are two elements to probable cause to arrest. The first is that a crime has been committed and the other is that the person to be arrested committed the offense (Stuckey, Roberson, Wallace p. 52). It is unclear to me if because the several males “looked suspicious” if this makes them a suspect of committing the crime.
Another issue to address is that Mr. Troubleshooter was chased, apprehended by citizens, and then held to the ground for approximately fifteen minutes against his will. The first problem is that a private person arrest should be made when a crime has been committed, or attempted, in the presence of the arresting person (Stuckey, Roberson, Wallace p. 51). The arrest must be made upon more than a mere suspicion that a crime had been committed. In this case the citizens arrested Mr. Troubleshooter because of his reputation of being a drug dealer, and his “brisk walk” towards his apartment with what appeared to be a gun. Although Mr. Troubleshooter may have been w...