[ORDER SOLUTION] The Good Faith Exception
A police officer must have probable cause to arrest an individual or to secure a search warrant. A police officer or any reasonable person may believe that a crime has been committed; that the place to be searched is the crime scene and the area containing evidence of a crime; and that the property to be seized is contraband, stolen, or evidence of a crime committed. The Fourth Amendment makes it clear that an affidavit submitted to a judge or magistrate when applying for a warrant for arrest and search and seizure identifies the facts confirming suspicion activities, supported by an Oath or affirmation (FindLaw, n.d.). The exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from a warrantless search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, it does not apply in civil cases. Evidence found supporting a crime committed is not relevant in trials if it was gained through a warrantless or invalid warrant. The courts adopted the exclusionary rule doctrine as a deterrence to misconduct by law enforcement and support of the Fourth Amendment rights. See Mapp v Ohio (FindLaw, n.d.). There are several exceptions where the exclusionary rule does not apply. The Good Faith Exception is when the police search reliance on a statute that is later invalidated, see Illinois v. Krull. Evidence is relevant where the Court finds that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied when police employees erred in maintaining records in a warrant database. See, some courts can recognize herring v U.S. The Independent Source Doctrine, an exception to the exclusionary rule. A portion of the partially tainted warrant is upheld and admissible if the remaining untainted information establishes probable cause sufficient to justify its issuance. See State v. Boll. The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine allows admission of evidence that was discovered in an unlawful search or seizure if it would have been found in the same condition anyway, by an independent line of investigation that was already being conducted when the illegal search or seizure occurred. See Nix v. Williams. Evidence Admissible for Impeachment is an exception where the exclusionary rule does not prevent the government from introducing illegally gathered evidence to impeach the credibility of the defendants’ testimony and to prevent perjury. However, it may only use tainted evidence for impeachment, and may not use it to show guilt. See Harris v. New York (LII, n.d.). A stop and frisk occur when a police officer briefly stops (for investigative detention) an individual that is suspected of committing, or is about to commit a crime. The suspect can be frisked, meaning that the police can give a quick pat-down of the suspect’s outer clothing in a search for weapons if believing that his safety, or that of others, is endangered. It is an action in which the citizen isn’t necessarily accused of a crime but also isn’t free to leave, at least until the officer indicates otherwise. See Terry v Ohio. An officer can arrest someone only with either a warrant or probable cause. If investigative detention becomes an arrest, it will be declared unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment without the presence of an order or probable cause (LII, n.d.). References FindLaw. (n.d.). Probable cause. http://criminal.findlaw.c.om/criminal-rights/probable-cause Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Exclusionary rule. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Stop and frisk http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stop_and_frisk. Scott Mayo worked as a bartender at The Local Watering Hole. One night at work, Scott got into an argument with Basil Scowen. Mayo owed Scowen $1500.00. The discussion heated up and, after Scowen picked up a beer bottle threateningly and appeared to be intoxicated, Mayo grabbed a pistol kept behind the bar and fired at Scowen, killing him. Mayo says Scowen told him, I am going to kill you, and what he believed was imminent danger from Scowen. Mayo was placed under arrest. He was not read his rights. He was transported to the local county jail. The prosecution witnesses are the police officer, who came to the scene and took statements from Mayo, and a frequent bar customer, Dawn Dietz, who witnessed some of what happened. The defense witnesses are the defendant, Mayo, and Joe, the fireman, who was outside and saw some of the action through the window while sitting on the patio. Based on the facts provided to you, if you are the prosecutor, what will you charge Mayo with using your state law? Please discuss why in your response, providing a detailed analysis of how you reach your decision on the charge(s). 1. Did the police have probable cause to arrest Mayo? Yes, the police had probable cause to arrest Mayo. As stated in the previous forum, there is no set standard to the amount of evidence needed, and in this case, the fact that Mayo was seen pulling a gun on and shooting/ killing Scowen is enough to make the arrest. 2. Did law enforcement violate Mayos constitutional rights? If yes, explain how. If not, explain why. Based on the details that we have been given in the case thus far, I do not believe that Mayos constitutional rights have been violated. They had probable cause to make an arrest. The only thing I see that may be questionable is the fact that he didnt have his Miranda rights read to him. It doesnt give a lot of detail to what happened after the killing, so we do not know if his rights were violated there or not. 3) Were the police required to read Mayo his Miranda rights? Discuss why. Technically, police officers are not required to read you your Miranda rights after you have been arrested if they do not intend to question you. However, if you are arrested and placed in a police vehicle, and they wish to ask you about your involvement in a crime, they must read you your Miranda rights. If someone tells the police he or she does not want to speak to them without an attorney present, police must stop asking you questions. The police can continue to question, and lawyers can make a motion to suppress any statements that made to the police in violation of Miranda rights. This means the judge will decide if your Miranda rights were violated. If the judge finds that your Miranda rights were violated, the judge will likely prohibit the prosecutor from introducing into evidence in the prosecutions case against you any statements you may have made to the police.
