Powers of Arrest

Powers of Arrest Arrest is an important concept in the criminal justice system, people liberty and national safety. However, w hales the law e forces officers are empowered to conduct arrests, the public are protected from unreasonable s earaches, seizures and arrests by the Fourth Amendment of the American constitutions. Nevertheless, w hither a search, seizure or arrests considered unreasonable by the law is subjected to two interests including a balance between the upholding individual rights and privacy and upholding public interests and interests of the governments.

One hand, every individual has right to privacy and ownership of properties. Every citizen also has the r light from unreasonable or warrantless arrests. Yet, national safety and government interests take priority. It is therefore import to understand the police powers to arrests and incidence when law enforces officers can arrests without a warrant.

What are Police Powers to Make an Arrest?

Every American citizen is entitled to the freedom of movements, associations, speech, right tow one property, and generally right to life. Therefore, whenever, the plie arrests a person, why take away their freedom, w hitch would be illegal if a rest is not legally acceptable. There are multiple incidences when a law enforcement officers may make a legal arrest. In the first incidence, a police officer may make an arrest if they personally observe an arrestee commit a crime. In the second case, the powers to a rest can be exercised if a law enforcement officer has a probable cause to believe that the arrested actually committed the crime.

A probable canoe is reasonable grounds based on police observations or observations and reports of other citizens may have committed a crime. A probable cause for arrests exists when law enforces officers have aerial facts that would cause a reasonable person to believe that a person is planning to commit a crime, is committing a crime or they have already committed the

crimes. () emphasizes that while material e evidence that constitutes a probable cause is les s than a prepontine of evidence which is required by the jury to prove that the suspects is actually guilty of the accusations, the facts for a reasonable cause must be more than mere suspicion and must be based on objective facts that can be validated by a court process. Arresting someone without a probable cause can be challenged as a malicious prosecutions following false a rest.

Before, a police officer makes an arrests, they must prove that a reasonable abuse exists to believe that the suspected persons should be arrested. They are then issued by an arrets warrant by the court allowing them to conduct a search, a seizure and arrests the suspected citizen. The court relies on the testimonies provided by the police officers when issuing the search, seizure or arrest warrant. this implies that police officers should not make warrantless arrests unless in specific cases which will be discussed later in the paper. In case of warrantless searches, seizures, or arrests, the defense may challenge them in a court of law.

In other cases, the police may not make an arrest but rather temporary detention of the suspect. In such cases, a probable cause is mandatory. nevertheless, police officers are required to have reasonable suspicion to detain a person. Reasonable suspicions implies that the law enforce officers act on the specific events at the specific time. Reasonable suspicions also implies that a suspicion would believe that a crime was underway and hence more investigations would be required to determine whether the detained persons is guilty or not. In the aces of detention, the detainee is treated as a suspect and only proven guilty using a ducky legally process. While in detention police officers keep the suspect in custody for further interrogations an investigation to establish the facts regarding the c rival activity. This is unlike when a person is arrested when a probable cause exists to believe that the suspect actually committed the

alleged crime. Nevertheless, in either case, the surplus suspect can only be proven guilty through a court hearing and a corresponding jury’s verdict.

Incidences When a Warrant is not Required to Make an Arrest There are limited c circumstances, when the powers to a rest may be exercised without a warrant. Such indices when law enforces officers may make unwarranted arrests include cases where police officers are conducting searchers in r elatedness to a lawful arrest that has already been made. Police officers may also make an arrest without presenting a court warrant in cases of e merges situations that threaten public safety. An example of such a case be arson cases where evidence is likely to be lost if arrests are not made promptly to stop the crime. In other cases, where a crime is being committed and the police officers can see size the inventory used to commit the c rime, then an arrest can be made without issuing an arrest. An example of such a case is in cases when police officers stop a car trafficking drugs. Drugs are martial evidence to confirm that a crime was being committed and hence, an arrests warrant may not necessary be issued before the arrest is made. Police officers may a loss make an a rests without a warrant in case a relapsed c convict breaches the rules of release or incases they find a person to be I custody of stolen property.

Nevertheless, probable cause and materials e Vince and facts used to validate an arrest in court of law are subject to the exclusionary rule barring use of unlawfully obtained evidence in ac our process. According to the exclusionary clause, any evidence used to justify police arrests is not admissible in court of law in case it was unsafely acquired. This is in exceptions of three incidents of indigent sours, attenuations of the taints and inevitable discovery. The attenuation of taint holds that evidence that Amy not has bene legally acquired can be excused if the unlawful police practice s was due to the prevailing circumstance implying that the v isolations would not

be served by suppression. Evidence that may have been obtained by the police unlawfully is also admissible in a court press to qualify an arrest, if similar e evidence was obtained by an independent source. Qualifications of evidence justifying a probable c abuse is also admissible in a court process even if it was unlawfully acquired by police officer s if it is qualified by inevitable discovery. The doctrine of inevitable discover holds that evidence sued by police officers to qualify b a rarest would-be admissible Ina court of law in cases where the evidence would either way have been discovered if the police officers a cited lawfully.

In conclusion, the power to arrests is subject to the constitutional rights to individual privacy. Therefore, while the police officers have the powers to make an arrest, they must only arrest a person’s only if there exists a probable cause to believe that a person committed, is planning to commit, or is commenting a crime. This s hold be more than mere suspicions yet, les s that the standards f e evinces required to proven a person guilt y of an offense in a court of law.

Police officers are also required to make arrests backed by arrest warrants form a court of law, in the execution of a few cases include incidences where public safety is threatened and when the officers can seize material evidence to prove that the person actually committed or intended to commit a crime. Any evidence used as the basis for robalo cause must also be lawfully acquired in exceptions of inevitable discovery, attenuations of the taint and indecent source.