The police departments' role in the country is to maintain law and order and ensure all citizens' safety while adhering to the laws that guard police practice. One of the most common activities among police officers is arresting suspects and conducting searches to find evidence that would link the suspects to the crimes committed. However, the law of probable cause must be adhered to when conducting investigations and making arrests. If probable cause is dishonored, courts can rule that the search and arrests made in a case are illegal. The courts ruled that the Amelia Tax Services search was unlawful because the police officers worked on suspicion instead of probable cause. Therefore, it is crucial for police officers to understand probable cause and its application to the search and arrest warrants.
The Requirements of An Arrest Warrant
An arrest warrant is a document that gives a police officer the right to arrest a person who is suspected of committing a crime. An arrest warrant must be signed by a judge or a magistrate and should be used within the timeframe prescribed (Arrest warrant, 2019). A competent authority should issue an arrest warrant after determining probable cause leading to an individual's arrest. An arrest warrant should be given if a reasonable person believes that the information presented before them is sufficient to indicate that the accused person has been involved in criminal activities (Arrest warrant, 2019). Arrest warrants insulate American citizens from the injustice of unlawful arrests, which is outlined in the Fourth Amendment. An arrest warrant also ensures that the person being arrested is given legal notice of why they are being detained.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Requirements of A Search Warrant
A search warrant is a document duly signed by a judge or a magistrate that allows a police officer to search for specific items in an actual location. For instance, if a court has been presented with sufficient evidence that a murder weapon used in an ongoing criminal investigation is in a specific area, the judge or magistrate can give a search warrant for the place to be searched (Probable cause, 2018). In the Amalia Tax and Translation Services case, the magistrate who issued the search warrant believed substantial evidence that the police officers would find the offices' incriminating evidence. The search warrant proved to be resourceful because 1358 of the files that were recovered from the office indicated that the tax services agency helped illegal immigrants live like legal citizens of the country by giving them forged social security numbers.
The Meaning of Probable Cause
Probable cause is a legal requirement that all police officers must meet before making an arrest, conducting a search, or receive a warrant for arrest or search. Probable cause is outlined in the Fourth Amendment and must be fulfilled for a court to sign a warrant of arrest or a warrant to search a property (Bowers, 2014). A court should only sign a warrant if they find a reasonable basis to believe that a crime may have been committed before signing a warrant for arrest. The court should also be provided with enough evidence to show that a crime, or proof linked to crime, could be found in the place marked for search. Probable cause can also be used in exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless search or seizure of items. When a person is arrested without a warrant, they should be presented before a competent authority after the arrest (Bowers, 2014). The competent authority is required to make a judicial determination of the probable cause used when making the arrest. In the Amalia Tax and Translation Services case, the testimony from some of the arrested individuals could have led law enforcement agencies to believe that they had probable cause for the consequent search. However, a suspect's testimony should be presented in an affidavit to show the offered information's credibility (Probable cause, 2018). The law enforcement agents in the case of intelligence that was certified to be credible. As a result, the evidence collected in the search could be inadmissible in a court of law.
The Application of Probable Cause
The Fourth Amendment provides a fluid definition of probable cause, leaving it to the courts to determine what should be considered probable cause and what should not be considered probable cause. The Fourth Amendment states, "No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause," but the amendment does not define what probable cause is (Bowers, 2014). Different courts in the country have attempted to define the term probable cause. Most of these courts have recognized that probable cause is a concept that is unclear, undefined, and is very dependent on the context of the application. According to the court presiding over the Illinois v. Gates, probable cause of a flexible term. The court defined probable cause as "a practical, non-technical standard that calls upon the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men act (Bowers, 2014)." The courts are allowed to apply a broader and more flexible understanding of probable cause if the offenses under investigation are serious.
How Does Probable Cause Apply to Arrests
The Fourth Amendment indicates that an arrest made by an American law enforcement agent must be based on probable cause, even if the arrest is made after being issued with an arrest warrant. Probable cause at the time of an arrest depends on the information that a law enforcement officer has at the time of the arrest and the evaluation of whether it justified the arrest (Arrest warrant, 2019). However, probable cause is a flexible concept, and the totality of circumstances can only be identified by the court's interpretation of the evidence presented (Probable cause, 2018). The lack of probable cause in a warrantless arrest could nullify the arrest's reason, and any evidence collected from the arrest would be suppressed. Suppressed evidence cannot be used in the prosecution of a person unless the court rules otherwise. US law provides a narrow exception when a warrantless arrest cannot be deemed invalid if it does not hold probable cause (Arrest warrant, 2019). The law states that if a police officer conducts an arrest due to a mistake committed by court employees, mistakenly and in good faith and believing that a warrant had been issued, they may not face the legal consequences of an unlawful arrest. The evidence obtained in such an arrest could be considered admissible in court.
The Application of Probable Cause in Search Warrants
Probable cause is a search activity is amounted to the probability that a piece of evidence that would be instrumental in solving a case could be found in the specified location. If a law enforcement agency conducts an unwarranted search, they could establish probable cause through an in-court testimony after the search (Burke, 2015). A search warrant must be accompanied by an affidavit or a recorded testimony that indicates the basis for probable cause. A judge or a magistrate is allowed by US law to sign a search warrant if they feel that the testimony presented before them amounts to probable cause for a search (Probable cause, 2018). The US system assumes that police officers are credible sources of testimonies. Judges and magistrates rely on law enforcement officials' testimonies to establish probable cause in the signing of search warrants (Burke, 2015). The officer's training and experience in the case they are handling become important determinants of how credible their testimonies are in the signing or issuing of a search warrant. Other factors that would be considered are information from witnesses or victims of sworn in an affidavit. The good faith that applies in arrests is also applicable in searches. The evidence collected in an unwarranted search could be admissible in court if the officers acted in good faith (Burke, 2015). The court evaluates the involved officer's good faith by assessing the error's nature and the warrant's execution. The case of the Amalia Tax and Translation Services search indicated that the officers acted on intelligence that the office was most known for offering forgery services to illegal immigrants (Burke, 2015). The intelligence gathered could be used in court to prosecute the office, but it is not linked to the case at hand. It, therefore, could be rendered inadmissible in a court of law.
The Right to Privacy in Relation to Arrests and Searches
The US federal law recognizes that each individual has a right to privacy, which should be guarded even when people engage with law enforcement agencies. The right to privacy protects individuals from government overreach, limiting how police officers can search property, seize any item, compel people to give information, collect personal information and listen in on conversations (The right to privacy, 2019). In the Amalia Tax and Translation Services case, the right to privacy was not observed during the search because the police officers searched the place on a hunch that they could find evidence linked to the illegal immigrants' cases they were handling at the time.
References
Arrest warrant. (n.d.) (2019). LII / Legal Information Institute . https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/arrest_warrant
Bowers, J. (2014). Probable Cause, Constitutional Reasonableness, and the Unrecognized Point of a Pointless Indignity . Stan. L. Rev., 66, 987.
Burke, A. S. (2015). Consent Searches and Fourth Amendment Reasonableness. Fla. L. Rev., 67, 509.
Probable cause. (n.d.) (2018). LII / Legal Information Institute . https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause
The right to privacy. (n.d.) (2019). Carmichael, Ellis & Brock PLLC - Criminal Defense Attorneys | Alexandria, VA . https://www.carmichaellegal.com/the-right-to-privacy
