Week 4 Class discussion (outline)

IErrq180
timer Asked: May 2nd, 2017

Question Description

Your first task is to post your own outline of your Phase 4 IP response to the discussion area so that other students are able to review your plan. Attach your outline to the main discussion board, and include any notes that you feel are appropriate. The purpose of this assignment is to help improve the quality of the Phase 4 IP that you will submit.

Begin by reviewing Individual Project from Week 4 to ensure that you understand the entire project.


The individual assignment for Week 4 is as follows:

At next year's annual conference, you will be conducting a training for which members can receive continuing education credits. The topic of your training is "Probable Cause v. Reasonable Suspicion: How Do We Train Our Officers?" This is a "train the trainer" event, in that the bulk of the attendees at your workshop will be training officers who will take these techniques back to their agencies to use as they train their new officers on these constitutional issues.

Your job is to put together a PowerPoint presentation that will utilize contemporary case law and other resources to provide a training presentation to the attendees. The objective of your training is to help attendees learn how to differentiate between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Essentially, your job is to provide these trainers with the tools to return to their agencies and make these concepts and issues clear to their officers. Effectively presenting this information can be the difference between a case being dismissed for lack of probable cause, and a deserving criminal defendant being prosecuted effectively.

Your training should address, but is not necessarily limited to, the following:

  • A definition of search and seizure
  • A discussion of who the Fourth Amendment regulates
  • A discussion of the reasonableness clause and the warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment
  • A definition of probable cause and of reasonable suspicion, and a discussion of the current state of the law on probable cause and reasonable suspicion
  • At least 2 different fact scenarios to illustrate the steps in the decision-making process for an officer in determining whether probable cause or reasonable suspicion exist
  • A discussion of the current state of the law in stop-and-frisk
  • A discussion of the consequences to law enforcement for violating the Fourth Amendment (such as the exclusionary rule or civil or criminal liability)
  • Any other information you believe important to convey in training on this topic

The assignment that was turned in for Week 4 Individual Project:

See drop box

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Training Veronica Reed Colorado Technical University Online Introduction ➢Disarray. That is the best word to portray the condition of comprehension of the idea of "reasonable justification," which is frequently shortened as "PC.“ ➢ Not just is there across the board misjudging with regards to the importance of the term, there's additionally a profoundly settled by and by among numerous law implementation officers, legal counselors, and judges of wrongly applying the reasonable justification standard where it doesn't have a place. Search and seizure ➢Search and seizure is a method utilized as a part of numerous common law and precedent-based law legitimate frameworks by which police or different experts and their specialists, who speculate that a wrongdoing has been perpetrated, do an inquiry of a man's property and take any significant proof to the wrongdoing. Fourth Amendment regulates ➢The Fourth Amendment shields a privilege to be free from outlandish inquiries and seizures, and it determines that "no warrants should issue, however upon reasonable justification." ➢This makes it a sacred necessity that court orders and capture warrants be founded on reasonable justification. ➢Be that as it may, the Constitution does not characterize "reasonable justification" or give any cases of what does or does not constitute PC. Reasonableness clause and the warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment ➢The administer of reasonable justification is a commonsense, nontechnical origination. In managing reasonable justification, we manage probabilities. ➢These are not specialized; they are the truthful and useful contemplations of regular daily existence on which sensible and judicious men, not lawful professionals, act. ➢Reasonable justification exists where the certainties and conditions inside the officers' learning and of which they have sensibly dependable data are adequate in themselves to warrant a man of sensible alert in the conviction that an offense has been or is being dedicated. Definition of probable cause and of reasonable suspicion ➢Reasonable suspicion is a sensible assumption that a wrongdoing has been, is being, or will be conferred. It is a sensible conviction in view of realities or conditions and is educated by a cop's preparation and experience. Sensible doubt is viewed as more than a figure or hunch yet not as much as reasonable justification. ➢Probable cause is the consistent conviction, upheld by actualities and conditions that a wrongdoing has been, is being, or will be conferred. ➢The pith of this discourse is that it is unrealistic for judges and legal advisors to relegate some numerical likelihood esteem for PC. ➢Rather, the "specialists" must attempt to quantify the truths of each case from a handy perspective and survey whether those certainties would legitimize a sensible officer in trusting criminal movement was astir. ➢Since some lower courts held on with an end goal to make a lawful agenda of confused "prongs" or "elements" to be assessed, the Supreme Court attempted to characterize PC in a 1983 case, saying the accompanying. discussion of the current state of the law in stop-and-frisk ➢Interpretation: bring down courts ought to quit utilizing a graduate school way to deal with investigating PC issues and just think about how as an officer in the field would comprehend the circumstance he or she went up against. ➢In a later choice, the court conceded that it had been not able give an exact meaning of reasonable justification yet gave this direction for lower courts occupied with appraisals of reasonable justification issues: consequences to law enforcement for violating the Fourth Amendment ➢ In the criminal law domain, Fourth Amendment "inquiry and seizure" securities reach out to: ➢ A law requirement officer's physical worry or "seizure" of a man, by method for a stop or capture; and ➢ Police ventures of spots and things in which an individual has a honest to goodness desire of protection - his or her individual, attire, tote, baggage, vehicle, house, loft, inn room, and place of business, to give some examples illustrations. ➢ The Fourth Amendment gives protections to people amid inquiries and confinements, and keeps unlawfully seized things from being utilized as proof in criminal cases. The level of assurance accessible in a specific case relies on upon the way of the confinement or capture, the attributes of the place looked, and the conditions under which the inquiry happens. References • Visser, C. K. (2008). Without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion: Is there any meaning to the Fourth Amendment while driving a car. Hous. L. Rev., 35, 1683. • Kinports, K. (2009). Veteran Police Officers and Three-Dollar Steaks: The Subjective/Objective Dimensions of Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion. U. Pa. J. Const. L., 12, 751. • Lerner, C. S. (2012). The reasonableness of probable cause. Tex. L. Rev., 81, 951. • Taslitz, A. E. (2013). Cybersurveillance without Restraint: The Meaning and Social Value of the Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion Standards in Governmental Access to Third-Party Electronic Records. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 103, 839.
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Similar Content

Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors