How to Analyze 4th Amendment Seizures of a Person on a Criminal Procedure Essay

📚 LAW SCHOOL & BAR EXAM PREP
Law school prep: studicata.com/...
Bar exam prep: studicata.com/...
Free courses: studicata.com/...
❤️ COMMUNITY & REVIEWS
Community: studicata.com/...
Testimonials: studicata.com/...
Submit a review: shoutout.studi...
📱 TECH
iOS app: studicata.com/ios
Android app: studicata.com/...
📣 ABOUT
Studicata provides a fresher, more relatable way to prep for law school finals and the bar exam. With top-rated video lectures, exam walkthrough videos, outlines, study guides, strategy guides, essay practice exams, multiple-choice assessments, performance tracking, and more-Studicata has you covered with everything you need to ace your finals and pass the bar exam with confidence.
Email: [e-mail]
Learn more: studicata.com
🎬 VIDEO INFO
How to Analyze 4th Amendment Seizures of a Person on a Criminal Procedure Essay
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable government searches and seizures.
Generally, there are two categories of government searches and seizures: (1) government seizures of a person (e.g., a police officer arrests a suspect and takes him into custody); and (2) searches and seizures of evidence to be used against a person in a criminal prosecution (e.g., a police officer searches a suspect’s car for drugs).
SEIZURES OF A PERSON UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
Under the 4th Amendment, a government seizure of a person must be reasonable.
A government seizure of a person occurs when a reasonable person would not feel free to terminate his encounter with a government agent under the totality of the circumstances. There are two main types of government seizures of a person: (1) Terry Stops; and (2) Arrests.
TERRY STOPS
A Terry Stop is a temporary seizure of a person used by the government to investigate potential criminal activity. A Terry Stop is reasonable when the government agent performing the Terry Stop has a reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts (i.e., more than a “hunch” - less than probable cause), that the person seized is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. Once a law enforcement officer begins a Terry Stop, he must take diligent steps to either confirm or dispel his suspicion of criminal activity.
ARRESTS
An arrest is a more substantial seizure of a person used by the government to take a suspect into custody. An arrest is reasonable when the government agent performing the arrest has probable cause to believe that the person seized has committed a crime. A law enforcement officer generally has probable cause if the officer witnesses the commission of the crime or a person tells the officer that a crime has been committed.
An individual may be arrested with or without an arrest warrant; however, an arrest warrant authorizes law enforcement officers to enter a home to arrest the individual. An arrest warrant is issued by a neutral magistrate based on a finding of probable cause to believe that the named individual has committed a crime. Without a warrant, officers can arrest an individual inside the home only if there is consent to enter or exigent circumstances (i.e., emergencies).
Learn more: studicata.com

[@deltaamerican2714]

im a sophomore in high school and i already know this, i will say i will not be taking these law classes at my school for granted

[@kristencarroll1374]

I’m obsessed with your videos!! You explain and break down everything PERFECTLY!! Your the reason I’m passing my criminal procedures class. Oh …and your not bad to look at ;-) Thank you sooo much!!

[@studicata]

Sure, happy to help!

[@kieshareeves2737]

Thank God for you! You broke this down soo lovely🙌🏾

[@studicata]

No problem, happy to help! 💪

[@makhenabarthelemy7945]

Thank you so much! This was so helpful while studying for my crim pro final!

[@studicata]

No problem, happy to help!

[@darkspectro2948]

This video only has more information than the whole course in the great courses plus

[@mateoenkc]

For real. I thought that I was watching the wrong course because there's nothing but bullshit time wasting going on with great courses

[@lifeisgolden41]

You out here saving lives sir. God bless.

[@studicata]

Thank you!

[@samiullahnasrat5218]

Thanks so much! you made it so simple and easy to understand. :)

[@studicata]

Sure, happy to help!

[@tangobelair]

I think you omit gov't safety stops , DUI or insurance id stops which are gov't stops but are neither Terry stops or arrest , so I can be lawfully seized w/o the gov 't meeting Terry or lawful arrest , but your lectures are great thank you

[@myriamabdul-ahad7410]

This dude should be a law School Professor

[@taylorwhite585]

What about a seizure of a person in another person’s home? Do you need a search warrant for that person’s house and an arrest warrant for the suspect?

[@amandaaldecoa1482]

I am still a student, but based on my understanding, the answer is yes. If law enforcement believes that a suspect is in a home belonging to a third party, they must go to a neutral and detached magistrate to obtain a search warrant to enter the third party's home and have an arrest warrant to arrest the suspect. Of course, there are exceptions, such as hot pursuit, exigent circumstances, etc.

[@Ebe-nezerLawCenter]

Awesome!! Thanks so much!!

[@studicata]

No problem, happy to help!

[@tichmungofa]

Thank you

[@studicata]

No problem!

[@keziahmwangi4146]

Michael you’re great in what you do !

[@vengeance2825]

Thanks for the content. However, I disagree with your statement on having to identify yourself. You most certainly do not have to identify yourself if an officer cannot articulate a crime. You are talking about a public servant interfering with private rights.

[@johnwesterlund7204]

I'd say you are right but TRAVIS HEINZE arrest in LA was for just not ID ING. HE WAS SENTENCED TO 30 DAYS IN JAIL, FOR NOT ID ING He did nothing wrong.

[@vengeance2825]

@@johnwesterlund7204 That is kidnapping. The people are the authority. The people are the author and source of the law. He was 100% a victim of legalese and the corruption it creates. Let us see what the content creator of this channel has to say. Remember, we are a society with a government of delegated powers derived from our US Constitution and ultimately from the people, that is to say, within the 50 states and those people originating from them.

[@johnwesterlund7204]

@@vengeance2825 I agree 100% but it doesn't negate what the authorities did. The remedy is hard to achieve when people need it. The system is rigged. You are here so you prob. already know the evils of our authorities. I voted but it remains the same. now what?

[@rtashpulatov]

it is useful but it has to be a reasonable suspicious of a crime. One cannot say "someone looked nervous so I had to detain a person"... you only have to identify yourself in so called stop and ID laws. Also, you do not have to provide a physical ID. in non-stop and ID states you have to ID only during the arrest.

[@blackspades0000]

Probable cause is a theory that has to pass a test to see if it applies in a particular case.

[@rtashpulatov]

@@blackspades0000 , in most interactions, it does pass the test. In some, it does not. When it does not there is normally a lawsuit... Cities and towns have a special insurance to settle such cases. Insurance premiums rise if the town's police department misbehaves more often. Taxpayers pay more dollaritoes. Sounds like a perfect American system.

[@blackspades0000]

@@rtashpulatov I agree with you 100%. It's difficult to show that there was no probable cause because the courts are basically working off of what the police officer reports. Also, to create probable cause if all else fails they can report that they received an anonymous tip.

[@rtashpulatov]

@@blackspades0000 yes and no. Proving the lack of PC is for an experienced attorney. This technique is used to defeat DWI charges. The goal of the defense attorney is to prove that the LEO lacked the RAS to make a stop and/or a PC to make an arrest. Thus, all evidence can be suppressed, i.e. "fruit of the poisoned tree"... believe it or not but it is often hard to prosecute DWI in courts. Applicable to other cases, an officer needs to have a RAS to investigate and it cannnot be "a man between the age of 16 and 65 wearing clothes".

[@jonathanlindsey7623]

If God is capable then Satan did it. Do you agree to die for Satan?

[@studicata]

🚨 SPECIAL OFFER: Want to crush law school finals, rack up scholarship $$$, pass the bar exam, and practice law like a BOSS? Take the LEAP. Get started today for free at: www.studicata.com/leap

[@Jonnie_Tha_Junglist]

if when u say "person" u mean human being why not just say human being?

[@samuelgarner7721]

Because person is shorter you dumb dumb

[@user-ci7we9of6p]

its word is not in the curriculum