0
When a police officer has the authority to arrest a suspect based on reasonable belief that the criminal has committed a crime it is called?
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
probable cause
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How well do police officer meet the criteria of probable cause before taking action with regard to criminal activity?
The wording of the question makes no sense. First off, an officer only needs to have reasonable suspicion that a criminal acltiivity MAY be taking place in order to have the authority to look into it.After looking into the activity and finding a person, or persons, committing a crime or who he has PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE MAY have committed a crime he can then make an arrest.
Can you explain the 4th amendment in few words?
The 4'th Amendment (to the United States Constitution) guarantees the freedom of persons from unreasonable search and seizure. This means that in order for a person of authority (usually a police officer) to search or to seize a premises, property, or a person, the officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect criminal activity, or perhaps even the threat of criminal activity.
How is probable cause and reasonable suspicion similar?
Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are legal actions that can be enforced by a law officer. These two actions are similar in that they give the police officer the ability to gain access when investigating a criminal action.
What does the gavel represent in criminal law?
It is a symbol of the authority and right to act officially in the capacity of a chair or presiding officer.
Is stop and frisk a valid police management tool?
No. In order for an officer to frisk, he must have reasonable articulable suspicion that the person stopped has committed (recent past criminal behavior), is committing (present criminal behavior), or is about to commit (future criminal behavior) a crime. That is known as RAS I. Before and officer can conduct the frisk, RAS I must be satisfied. If RAS I is met, then the officer may conduct a limited seizure of the person (i.e., temporarily detaining the person) in order to determine whether the officer's suspicions are indeed correct. This is also known as a Terry Stop. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Individuals may have difficulty specifically defining what constitutes reasonable articulable suspicion. As a starting point, it requires more than a "gut feeling" or hunch on the part of the officer. Reasonable articulable suspicion should indicate to the officer a substantial possibility that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur. It requires less proof of wrongdoing than required buy the evidence or probable cause standard. Under the RAS standard, officers are not required to rule out all possibility of innocent behavior before initiating a Terry Stop. The possibility of an innocent explanation for behavior does not deprive the officer of the capacity to entertain a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal conduct. Essentially, an officer must do two things in order to meet the reasonable articulable suspicion standard. First, the officer should identify the type of crime he/she suspects is being committed. Second, the officer should be able to specify or articulate what factors leads him/her to believe that the activity is criminal in nature. The general factors use for determining RAS is based on the totality of circumstances.
What does a stop and frisk allow an officer to do?
The officer may perform a "Stop" when the officer has reasonable suspicion that the suspect may have committed a crime. The officer may perform a "Frisk" when there is a lawful "Stop", along with reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed.
When may an officer make an arrest without a warrant?
When he has probable cause to believe that the person he is arresting has committed, or is about to commit, a criminal offense.
What would happen to a judge who knows a police officer lies under oath and lets the officer get away with lying?
The officer would need to be charged with perjury or aggravated perjury and then indicted, and then receive a criminal trial. You could follow up with the department where the officer works and file an internal affairs complaint as well and the department where the officer works should look into it. In the event the officer is found to be untruthful beyond a reasonable doubt and found guilty, I would guess the officer would face the consequences anyone else would for the same crime. As far as the judge goes, they do not have the option to summarily pass judgement and adjudicate the officer as having committed perjury or aggravated perjury. The person accused has the rights to the same criminal justice system as everyone else, including the representation of an attorney at their criminal proceedings.
Is there a way to get out of a driving while suspended ticket if officer had no reason to pull some one over to begin with?
No Police have to have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to make a traffic stop. The reasonable suspicion doesn't have to turn out to prove criminal activity; all that is required is that the officer had a reasonable belief something criminal was happening. For example, if a police officer believed you looked like a person wanted for a serious crime, he could stop you to check your identity. Even though you're not the wanted person, if the officer discovers other criminal activity during the stop (suspended license, open containers of alcohol, stolen property, etc.), he can make an arrest or issue a citation for those charges. The charges will be just as valid as if he had seen you driving at 100 miles per hour.
Does a criminal history warrant reasonable suspicion?
Reasonable suspicion is a Fourth Amendment constitutional standard that can be based on multiple factors. Stemming from the 1961 landmark case in Terry v. Ohio, a police officer may only stop, seize or otherwise detain a person if that officer can point to specific and articulable facts that the person seized has, is, or will violate the law. Specific facts don't have to be legal violations themselves and are often only tenuously related to any potential legal violations. Courts often cite time of day, whether the person stopped is in a "high crime area," and whether a person appears nervous as factors supporting reasonable suspicion for a stop. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on a mere hunch of the officer. Generally, an officer's knowledge that someone has a criminal record would not in and of itself rise to reasonable suspicion for a stop. However, in combination with other factors, such as proximity to another crime, or other "suspicious" behavior, criminal record can be relevant in determining whether reasonable suspicion for a stop. Ultimately, any such question will be up to a judge who reviews whether a reasonable police officer under the totality of the circumstances had sufficient facts to believe the person stopped had or was violating the law.
Entrpament occurs only when the criminal conduct was the of the agent?
Entrapment occurs when an officer entices a person to commit a crime, especially when the affected person had no intent to commit such crime. Entrapment can only be committed by an officer, not a civilian.
Can a Police officer pull someone over in your private driveway when no violation has been committed in Victoria?
Police officers have the authority to investigate suspicious circumstances and suspected crime ANYWHERE. YOU allege that you committed no wrongdoing and no violation - if you feel wronged, file an official complaint with the officer's department.,
