The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement. This discussion will delve into probable cause, the difference between stops, frisks, and arrests, the exclusionary rule, and its exceptions.

Probable Cause

Probable cause is the legal standard required for a law enforcement officer to make an arrest or obtain a search warrant. It’s defined as a reasonable belief, based on the facts and circumstances known at the time, that a crime has been committed or is being committed, or that evidence of a crime is present. Here’s the key: it’s not about absolute certainty, but a reasonable belief based on available information.

Levels of Police Interaction:

• Stop: A brief detention of a person based on reasonable suspicion (articulable facts) of criminal activity. The officer can briefly question the person and ask for identification.
• Frisk: A pat-down of a person’s outer clothing for weapons based on a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. This is a limited intrusion to ensure officer safety.
• Arrest: Taking a person into custody for the purpose of charging them with a crime. It requires probable cause.

Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule is a legal principle that prohibits the use of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment in a criminal trial. This means even if the police find evidence of a crime, if they obtained it through an illegal search or seizure, the evidence cannot be used against the defendant in court.

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

There are a few exceptions to the exclusionary rule, meaning illegally obtained evidence can still be used in court. Some common exceptions include:

• The Inevitable Discovery Exception: If the police can prove they would have inevitably discovered the evidence through a legal means, it can be used.
• The Good Faith Exception: If the police acted in good faith, believing they had a valid warrant or probable cause, even if the warrant was later found to be defective, the evidence might be admissible.

Applying the Concepts to a Scenario (Replace with Week One Discussion Facts)

Unfortunately, I cannot access specific details from past discussions. However, I can provide a general framework for analyzing a scenario using the concepts discussed above.

Replace the bracketed information with details from your Week One discussion:

1. Probable Cause for Arrest: Review the facts of the scenario. Did the officer have enough information (witnesses, suspicious behavior, stolen goods) to form a reasonable belief that Mayo committed a crime?

2. Constitutional Rights Violation: Did the police stop, frisk, or arrest Mayo without justification? Did they obtain evidence through an unreasonable search or seizure? If so, Mayo’s rights might have been violated.

3. Miranda Rights: Miranda rights are typically read during a custodial interrogation, which happens after an arrest. Analyze if Mayo was under arrest or simply detained. If he was only briefly detained during a stop or frisk, Miranda rights might not apply.

Remember, this is a general framework. Analyzing specific scenarios requires a detailed understanding of the facts presented in your Week One discussion.