The Rules of Law Enforcement

      After reviewing Appendix B, I came to the conclusion the two detectives did not conduct a lawful search and seizure.   The detectives had probable cause to stop and question the first suspect that was walking briskly out of the electronics store.   There was probable cause to stop and talk with the suspect.   His Miranda rights were read and he was taken into custody.   The Miranda rights were read during the arrest which was conducted properly. During interrogation detectives were informed about the second suspect, at that time an arrest warrant was issued.   The detectives conducted an illegal search.   They didn’t have a search warrant, they had an arrest warrant.   They did have probable cause to arrest the second suspect.   The arrest was improperly conducted because they didn’t read the suspect their Miranda rights.   The suspects Fourth Amendment rights were violated.     It’s important for officers to read suspects their Miranda rights because it’s important they understand their rights for entrapment purposes.   Also, if a suspect is interrogated without being read their Miranda rights, their statement is automatically excluded.

      Police weren’t able to conduct a lawful interrogation on the second suspect because their Fourth Amendment rights were violated and their Miranda rights weren’t read.   When police arrived at the second suspects’ residence, they should have had a search warrant.   They asked the 14yr old girl to enter the home because it was important for them to do so and the girl agreed.   Police were not permitted by law to conduct any preliminary search.   Any information that police obtained from the suspect during the interrogation had to be thrown out in a court of law. The interrogation was against the law just like the search of the suspects’ home.

      This case study leads me to believe that some actions were conducted properly by law and some were not.   Police officers cannot frisk anyone or search their premises without probable...