Question:This chapter of the text opens with the issue of defining the term probable cause. The term is a difficult one to define and has been addressed by a number of United States Supreme Court cases. Discuss the different cases (at least 3) that address the definition of probable cause and their impact on policing.

They are those kinds of cases in which severe and reasonable things are presented before drawing conclusions to any issue related to criminal acts and injustice. Several searches are made in such kind of cases before drawing conclusions giving a preferable charge to the accused.

The first case that proved to be a possible example of criminal cases related to probable cause was Illinois v. Gates. In this case, the main holding rose with the test of totality of circumstances under the fourth law Amendment. This case is regarded as a landmark in the probable cause evolution as well as search warrants. Aguilar – Spinelli test was abandoned by Supreme Court in this case. The consistent elements of this case were search and seizure. These actions also implied on the fourth amendment.

Another example was the case of Maryland v. Pringle. In the holding of this case, Fourth Amendment was not violated by the arrest and the officer involved had probable cause. On this basis, he arrested Mr. Pringle. . It was concluded that fourth and fourteenth ammendenent of the US constitution were not violated in this case.

Third example of a case related to probable cause was Terry v. Ohio. In this case, police stopped a person who was suspected due to reasonable suspicion onto him. Affirmation was held as a result of this case from the Supreme Court of Ohio. This was the first case which led to the prohibition of fourth amendment.

Question: After a conviction, a defendant may appeal a conviction. A number of results can occur when a defendant appeals a conviction. These include affirmation, reversal or reverse and remand. Explain each of the possible results and what they may mean to the defendant. Is the appellate process the best way to ensure justice? Why? Why not? What other options might work better?

After a conviction, there are a number of ways to appeal a conviction. The first way is affirmation. It is defined as a declaration which is allowed to those people who object on taking an oath .It was set in the constitution of 1787.  Oath taking in law has diverse effects on the legalization. It is sometimes avoided due to religious differences. Globally, it is a legal action not a religious one. The second technique for the proper remedy of conviction is reversal. In this technique, the decisions are processed to be reversed by the court. The lower courts try to improvise and dismiss the original actions taken by the court. As a result of this action, the judgeenents are retried and sometimes changed. The third technique is remand. In this process, the higher courts remand the ongoing case and then the lower court is responsible for taking actions. During this process, prisoners are sent back to prison before the trial is commenced. This appellate way is one of the most authentic ways to ensure justice as it provides a room for further investigation and authentication of the related case. Affirmation can have negative aspects on the law making situations and it has not lead to proper accentuation. Few people do not take any obligatory oath and are considered to be guilty of the crime even when they are not. Remand and reversal had led to proper authentication of many cases which formerly lead to obstructive ending.

Question: United States v. Ross (1982) is one of the top five cases in vehicle stops, searches, and inventories. Discuss the case and its importance in law enforcement. What about this case makes it important to police officers? Discuss what effect it has likely had on the behavior of police officers.

            In the law history of America, the case United States v. Ross was a search and seizure case. In this case, a reasonable question was raised for the high court about the checking of warrantless vehicles. The name of the main accused in this case was Albert Frost. In this case, accused was found selling narcotics and drugs locked in a car. During these searches by the police, no warrants were obtained which was a major question raised by the people from the law. This is how it leads to the violation of fourth amendment. In this case, police officers were involved who legitimately stopped an automobile. It is one of the most important law related cases in the American history.  It had adverse effects on the police officers throughout the country. As a result of this case, it was made legal that police officers can only lead towards search of an automobile in the presence of warrants or other probable cause. It also implied that police can search the suspected individual for weapons. This had diverse impacts on police officers like searching the containers. Police officers then only began to check separate containers. Vehicles were not checked in the absence of warrants. As a result of this case, it was merely concluded that any act of searching cars or other automobiles without warrants is an unconstitutional act.

Question: A stop and frisk is different from an arrest. Discuss the differences and similarities between these two types of seizures. What level of proof is required for each? How do the different types of situations that these different seizures are used for affect the standards the Court uses to judge their constitutionality? What factors were involved in the Court’s decisions regarding these two types of seizures?

In stop and frisk, individual is only stopped by a police due to reasonable suspicion onto himself. It can occur on an alarming rate due to light implications and different suspects over an individual. In an arrest, a person is kept in police custody under the lawful processes of the main issue. It depends on the situation of an individual that he may get arrested after going through stop and frisk or not.  In both cases, a person is suspected to be under possible suspicion. Stop and frisk has proved to be very beneficial for the law enforcement powers around the country. These both lawful actions are conducted as a result of reasonable doubts or when someone is caught doing wrongful deeds and damaging the law. It helps to catch crimes on its initial suspicion. In terms of probable cause, arrest is a fair and legal action to be taken by the Court in order to sweep off crime. In determination of these two kinds of seizures such as, stop and frisk & arrest, few factors are kept in mind. One of those important factors is the presence of a reasonable cause for taking such an action. Radicalism is also a key factor which should be avoided. Court does not directly decide to detain an individual as a result of stop and frisk. Instead, proper search operations are conducted before any kind of detention.