Safeguards Against Criminal Procedures

Despite the fact that police officers and other law enforcement officers are less respected in the society, it is worth noting their sacrifices to maintain the safety of every member of the society. After arresting law breakers in the society, they have to take them to court and prove that their arrest was justified and the suspect had committed, was committing or was on the process of a crime in a court of law. As a result, they need all the support they need to put away the bad people. One way to support their work is assisting in the criminal procedures which can be described as the safeguards against the favoritism in the execution of criminal laws and the unchaste treatment of accused criminals. Criminal procedures, evidence, and testimonies
The court will consider whether the officer had reasonable belief that it was urgent to act without a warrant based on the totality of circumstances. During an investigatory stop, the police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime may or will be committed based on the articulable facts. This is a Terry condition during a traffic stop that makes is lawful for an officer to detain an automobile and its occupants (Cornell, n.d.d.). One factor in the reasonableness of an investigatory stop is the “high-crime” neighborhood (based on department and census information) and the suspicious movements of the passenger who was making “shoving down motions”. Even after the officer repeated “let me see your hands”, the suspect continued to makes these furtive gestures. This articulates a picture that the judge can see based on the experience of the police officer. These facts conclude that reasonable suspicion the suspect was armed and dangerous, and existed that possible criminal behavior was possible based on the totality of circumstances, and, therefore, the Terry stop is valid (USCourts, 2000). Now that reasonable suspicion has been articulated, next is determining whether the crack cocaine seized from the suspect’s
Although the police officer initially did not have any reasonable suspicion the suspect was armed and dangerous, or even that the defendant committed a crime, normally this would result in a suppression of evidence. In this case, a routine patrol in an area that is “high risk” for crime from public intoxication to murder. These are consider considered exigent circumstances. As part of his duty to protect and serve the community, an officer may stop and assist someone where 4 factors must be considered, which are determining if the individual is in distress, location of the individual, was the individual alone or already being cared for, and/or if the individual appears to be a danger to himself or others in the community. Also, an officer must have reasonable suspicion or specific facts that can articulate his concerns based on his knowledge and expertise before the officer can detain an individual. In Case 2, the individuals were parked in a dark, high crime area. Illinois v. Wardlow 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000) recognizes that fact of a “high crime’ area to be considered in the exigent circumstance when performing a Terry analysis (Ferguson, 2008). This provided the officer plenty of reasonable suspicion that the possibility of criminal behavior may occur based on the totality of circumstances. This also validates the Terry stop (USCourts, 2000). When the officer approached the car, he could see the bullet