Criminal Procedure - Probable Cause Article Summary

Criminal procedure- probable cause article summary

Crystal Arnold

10/9/2017

CJA/315

Roderick Shelton

George Zimmerman case trial

“George Michael Zimmerman is an American known for the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012 in Sanford, Florida. On July 13, 2013, Zimmerman was acquitted of 2nd degree murder in Florida v. George Zimmerman. As of 2015, Zimmerman remains the subject of media interest, due to ongoing controversy of the Trayvon Martin case. Zimmerman was released, due to lack of evidence that would prove it wasn’t self-defense”, (ABC News.2017).

“George Zimmerman was charged with shooting Trayvon Martin, but the prosecutor had to show a judge that there was probable cause. Sanford police experienced outrage from the public when they announced they had no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. The evidence in this case would be to convince a reasonable person that a crime has been committed by Zimmerman in which would prove that he committed a crime when he shot the unarmed teen in a gated Sanford community in late February, which could be a witness, a piece of physical evidence or something else. Sanford police were looking for evidence of manslaughter. Police can and do arrest suspects without probable cause, but judges must then order their release from jail. When this happens, police can rearrests the suspects and prosecutors are free to file charges, but they must bring the case trial within one hundred and seventy-five days of arrest, according to Florida rules of criminal procedure. This is often an incentive in which prosecutors use to hold off on an arrest. This tends to give them more time to collect evidence, such as conducting ballistics testing if a gun was involved or to have fingerprints analyzed”, (NY Times.2017).

Requirements for search and arrest warrants and how they apply to the right to privacy and probable cause

        There are many requirements for search and arrest warrants, for example “to obtain a warrant, an application for a warrant must be supported by a sworn, detailed statement made by a law enforcement officer appearing before a neutral judge or magistrate”, (National Paralegal College.2017). Requirements for search and arrest warrants apply to the right to privacy and probable cause in many ways,  for example, requirements for search and arrest warrants apply to right to privacy and probable cause, due to the requirements for search and arrest warrants require authorities to respect the right to privacy for citizens of the United States to where people’s  rights to privacy can’t be violated  and it also applies to probable cause, due to authorities must have and prove that there is probable cause in order to obtain the search warrants, which means that if the prosecutor or officers can’t prove probable cause, there will be no warrant issued.

Exceptions to warrant requirements

        There are many warrant exceptions, such as “search incident to lawful arrest, plain view exception, consent, stop and frisk, as well as auto exception. A search incident to lawful arrest does not require issuance of a warrant. If someone is lawfully arrested, the police may search the person and any area surrounding the person that is within the reach. Rationale is that the search is permissible as a protective measure for police safety and to secure evidence that may be destroyed. This exception also applies to the search of a vehicle mainly when officers arrest the occupants of a vehicle. Within Plainview exception, no warrant is required to seize evidence in Plainview if the police are legitimately in the location from which the evidence can be viewed, such as an officer can’t illegally enter a suspect’s backyard and then use the Plainview exception to seize an alligator living in the pool, but if on the premises to a warrant duly issued to search for marijuana plants, the alligator if in Plainview can rightly be seized. Within consent, if consent is given by a person reasonably believed by an officer to have authority to give such consent, no warrant is required for a search and seizure, so if a suspect’s significant other provides police with a key to the suspect’s apartment and police reasonably believe that she lives there, the search will not violate suspects Fourth Amendment rights even if she did not live there and even if she lacked authority to consent. Within Stop and Frisk, police may stop a suspect if there is a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act and the officer can articulate facts leading to that suspicion. The evidence necessary for reasonable suspicion here is something mere suspicion, but is less than the level required for probable cause. If there is reason to believe that the person may be armed and dangerous, the police can also frisk the suspect. Due to vehicles being highly mobile, a warrant is not required to search vehicle if police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime, the instrumentalities of crime, contraband or the fruits of a crime. This rule applies to any vehicle, including boats, but this rule limits the ability to search those areas that may contain evidence of the type suspected to be present. The rationale is that if an officer must take the time to obtain a warrant, the vehicle may be out of reach before the warrant can be issued and executed. Within Emergencies/hot pursuits, the rationale is like the auto exception, due to evidence that can be easily removed, destroyed or otherwise made to disappear before a warrant can be issued, it can be served without a warrant, for example, if a suspect enters private property while being pursued by officers, no warrant is required to enter that property to continue pursuit, even if the suspect is in no way connected with the property owner”, (National Paralegal College. 2017).