Assume a law enforcement officer has probable cause to arrest a defendant for armed assault, and he also has probable cause to believe that the person is hiding in a

third person’s garage, which is attached to the house.
NOTE: You must fully answer all questions and use APA in-text citation and references with all assignments, even when a question is asking you opinion.

1.What warrants, if any, does the officer need to enter the garage to arrest the defendant?
2.What if the officer is in hot pursuit of the defendant?
3.What if the defendant is known to be injured and unarmed? Provide evidence to support your answer.
4.Formulate a set of circumstances in which there is probable cause to search but not probable cause to arrest or in which there is probable cause to both arrest and

to search.
Mr. A walks into a police station, drops three wristwatches on a table, and tells an officer that Mr. B robbed a local jewelry store 2 weeks ago. Mr. A will not say

anything else in response to police questioning. A quick investigation reveals that the three watches were among a number of items stolen in the jewelry store robbery.
Do the police have probable cause to do any or all of the following?

1.Arrest Mr. A
2.Arrest Mr. B
3.Search Mr. A’s home
4.Search Mr. B’s home
5.If you answered no to any of the above, explain why in detail.
6.If you answered yes to any of them, draft the complaint or affidavit for a warrant OR explain why a warrant is not needed.

LINKS PROVIDED BY PROGESSON

Find Law.com
FindLaw provides a comprehensive set of legal resources for legal professionals, corporate counsel, law students, businesses, and consumers.

http://www.findlaw.com/

Search Warrants: An Over-view
This resource provides an overview on search warrants.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant

New York City Police Department Stop and Frisk Policies (December 1999)

Prepared by the Office of the Attorney General, this comprehensive report deals with surveys and personal experiences of citizens concerning police stop and frisks and

racism. It covers the legal aspects and the police policy to implement reasonable inquiry and contact within the limits of the law. A survey had found community

distrust of these practices. The report is organized so that the reader can read any particular section and an executive summary is provided.

http://www.ag.ny.gov/

Stop and Frisk Law
When can the police stop and frisk you on the street?

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/when-can-the-police-stop-and-frisk-you-on-the-street

Supreme Court of the United States
When can the police stop and frisk you on the street?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/

Reading Material Provided by Professor
(School MUSE, 2014)

Stop and Frisk, Search Incidents, and Consents

Introduction

Situations often arise in which the time and effort needed to obtain a warrant would unjustifiably frustrate enforcement of the laws. To ensure that the delicate

balance between individual rights and law enforcement is maintained, courts have carved out various exceptions to the warrant requirement, allowing searches and

seizures without warrants in certain situations. Exceptions include stop and frisk, search incident to arrest, and consensual searches.

Stop and Frisk

A stop is the least intrusive type of seizure of a person governed by the Fourth Amendment. Under that amendment, a person is seized only if, in view of all the

circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was not free to leave. The officer making the stop must be able to

justify the stop with specific facts and circumstances indicating possibly criminal behavior.

A law enforcement officer may intrude upon a person’s privacy for purposes of conducting a protective search for weapons, also called a frisk. A frisk is not

automatically authorized whenever there is a stop. The officer must be able to demonstrate, by specific facts and circumstances, reasonable suspicion that the person

might be armed and dangerous. It must be strictly limited for protective purposes.

Search Incident to Arrest

Search incident to arrest is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. It is permitted to search a person who has been subjected to

lawful custodial arrest for the purposes of removing weapons and preventing the concealment or destruction of evidence. A full search for weapons and seizable evidence

is permitted, whether or not there is any likelihood of danger or any reason to believe evidence will be found.

Consent Searches

A consent search occurs when a person allows a law enforcement officer to search his or her body, premises, or belongings. Consent searches are convenient for law

enforcement officers, requiring no justification, such as probable cause or a warrant, but consent searches present many opportunities for abuse. Courts exercise a

strong presumption against consents to search for this reason, and place a heavy burden on prosecutors to prove that consent to search was voluntary.

WARRANTS
Introduction

Situations often arise in which the time and effort needed to obtain a warrant would unjustifiably frustrate enforcement of the laws. To ensure that the delicate

balance between individual rights and law enforcement, courts have carved out various exceptions to the warrant requirement, allowing searches and seizures without

warrants in certain situations. Three exceptions include stop and frisk, search incident to arrest, and consensual searches. Three more exceptions include the Plain

View Doctrine, search and seizure of vehicles and containers, and open fields and abandoned property.

The Plain View Doctrine

Under the plain view doctrine, an observation of items lying open to view by a law enforcement officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view is not a

search, and the officer may seize the evidence without a warrant. The doctrine has four requirements, all of which must be satisfied before seizure of an item of

evidence can be legally justified:

1.The officer must be in a position in which he or she has a legal right
2.The officer must not unreasonably intrude on any person’s reasonable expectation of privacy
3.The incriminating nature of the object to be seized must be immediately apparent to the officer
4.The discovery of an item of evidence by the officer need not be inadvertent. If evidence is discovered by accident, but was not what the officer was originally

looking for, then it is inadmissible in a case against the defendant

Search and Seizure of Vehicles and Containers

By their mobility, vehicles are considered exigent circumstances and may provide another exception to search warrants. Most vehicle searches fall under the Carroll

doctrine, which stipulates that law enforcement officers may conduct a search of a motor vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause that the vehicle

contains items subject to seizure, and if exigent circumstances make obtaining a warrant impracticable. If the vehicle is readily mobile, then the exigent

circumstances requirement is automatically satisfied and the police need not provide supporting facts and circumstances to establish the existence of exigent

circumstances. The Carroll doctrine does not allow searches of movable, closed, opaque containers unassociated with a vehicle without a warrant.

Open Fields and Abandoned Property

A law enforcement officer may search for items of evidence lying in the open fields without probable cause, a search warrant, or other legal justification without

violating a person’s Fourth Amendment rights, and may seize items if the officer has probable cause to believe the items are “seizable” under the law of the officer’s

jurisdiction. The open fields are the area lying outside the curtilage of a person’s home or business. Whether a piece of land or a building falls within the curtilag