Attached are general procedural forms which are designed to assist the prosecutor in litigation.
Attached are general procedural forms which are designed to assist the defendant in litigation.
Attached are state specific procedural forms which are designed to assist the prosecutor in litigation.
Attached are state specific procedural forms which are designed to assist the defendant in litigation.
The key to understanding the Fourth Amendment is that it was enacted to protect the right of all persons to be "secure in their persons," and to effectuate this goal the courts have interpreted the Amendment to prevent unreasonable arrests or detentions.
44 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 229 (Originally published in 1986)
Probable cause for a warrantless arrest must exist at the time the arrest is made. While the arresting officer need not have the degree of evidence that would establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, he or she must clearly have more than a "mere suspicion." The officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion and invasion of privacy involved in the arrest.
44 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 229 (Originally published in 1986). See also, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968)
Legality of searches and seizures depends on whether there was an objectively reasonable basis for search or seizure. “[T]he fact that the officer does not have the state of mind which is hypothecated by the reasons which provide the legal justification for the officer's action does not invalidate the action taken as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action.”
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 1774, 135 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1996); United States v. Hauk, 412 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2005)
A warrantless arrest by a law officer is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed. Whether probable cause exists depends upon the reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest.
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 152, 125 S. Ct. 588, 593, 160 L. Ed. 2d 537 (2004)
Miranda states that the accused must be given the warnings when he is "in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way" before any interrogation can begin.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966)
The Miranda rule is limited to custodial interrogations.
Waiver -- In order for a confession obtained during a custodial interrogation to be admissible, any waiver of one's Miranda rights must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and a valid waiver depends upon the totality of the circumstances, including the background, experience, and conduct of the defendant.
23 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 713 (Originally published in 1980)
