0
What else can I help you with?
Identify three exceptions to the ''knock and announce'' rule?
When there is a reasonable suspicion that evidence will be destroyed if officers knock and announce their presence. When there is a threat of physical harm to the officers or others if they follow the knock and announce rule. When officers have obtained a "no-knock" warrant from a judge authorizing them to enter a property without announcing their presence.
How does exclusionary rule prevents officers from performing unlawful searches and seizures?
If an officer were to obtain evidence illegally, such as searching you without probable cause, the evidence they acquired would not be admissible in court. That's not to say the entire case would be thrown out, but that single piece of evidence would not be allowed in court. The exclusionary rule doesn't prevent unlawful searches and seizures, but it disincentivizes them by making evidence seized unlawfully inadmissible at trial. There's no reason to illegally obtain evidence if it can't be used to convict a defendant.
How does the exclusionary rule apply to Leon v US?
In Leon v. United States (1984), the Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which typically prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court, does not apply when law enforcement officers act in good faith reliance on a search warrant that is later found to be invalid. The Court held that excluding evidence in such cases would not serve the rule's purpose of deterring police misconduct. This decision established the "good faith" exception, allowing evidence obtained from a flawed warrant to be admissible if the officers believed the warrant was valid.
What is an exception to the exclusionary rule?
The exclusionary rule applies to the evidence allowable in a criminal case. One exception is the "good faith exception" established by the US Supreme Court case, United States v. Leon. This exception provides that in some cases evidence discovered in an otherwise illegal search may be used at trial rather than excluded, provided the search had been made in good faith. This means that if the police honestly believed that the search was legal (even though on further review of the facts it was not), the evidence obtained will not be excluded. This applies to officers' objective, good-faith reliance on a warrant, later found to be defective, issued by a detached and neutral magistrate. (See below link)
Are officers field notes are not considered official evidence and are not admissible as possible evidence?
No, officers' field notes can be considered official evidence and may be admissible in court. Field notes document the observations, actions, and conversations made by officers during an investigation or incident. They can serve as valuable sources of information and help support the credibility and accuracy of the officers' testimony. However, their admissibility depends on the specific rules and procedures of the jurisdiction in which the case is being tried.
What are the formal charges that an NCO may face in a military court-martial proceeding?
Non-commissioned officers (NCOs) in the military may face formal charges in a court-martial proceeding such as dereliction of duty, insubordination, misconduct, or other violations of military law.
What is the name of a person that goes and finds evidence on a crime sense.?
Scenes of crime officers (or SOCOs for short.) Forensic officers are are called to an incident, but they usually stay at the lab to analyse the evidence using high-tech equipment.
What was the outcome of the legal case Malley v. Briggs and how did it impact the legal landscape?
In the legal case Malley v. Briggs, the Supreme Court ruled that police officers are protected from being sued for making an arrest based on a warrant that is later found to be invalid, as long as the officers acted in good faith. This decision established the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule, which allows evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to be used in court if the officers believed their actions were legal. This ruling has had a significant impact on the legal landscape by limiting the ability of individuals to challenge the legality of their arrests based on the validity of the warrant.
Which US Supreme Court case made the exclusionary rule applicable to seizures done by federal officers?
Weeks v. US, (1914) was the case that established the "exclusionary rule," preventing evidence gathered through illegal or unreasonable search and seizure of a suspect from being used to prosecute the suspect in court. This Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure protection originally applied only to federal casesbecause the Supreme Court hadn't incorporated much of the Bill of Rights to the States in 1914.Case Citation:Weeks v. US, 232 US 383 (1914)
Can police officers tow a car for evidence of a hit a run when there was no evidence?
If the officer has probable cause, they would probably tow and impound a car to find evidence. In short, yes.
Why do police officers use steroids?
Your question assumes facts not in evidence. If you are aware of officers using illegal drugs, it should be reported to the proper authorities, not bantered on a website.
Suspects who flee from officers and throw away evidence as they retreat may be arrested based on the nature of the abandoned evidence?
Yes, suspects who flee from officers and discard evidence may be arrested because the act of discarding evidence can be perceived as an attempt to obstruct justice or hide incriminating information. The abandoned evidence may also provide probable cause for the suspect's arrest if it is directly linked to criminal activity.
