Log in to StudySoup

Forgot password? Reset password here

UMass - LEGAL 250 - Study Guide - Final

Created by: Victoria Trautwein Elite Notetaker

> > > > UMass - LEGAL 250 - Study Guide - Final

UMass - LEGAL 250 - Study Guide - Final

0 5 3 16 Reviews
This preview shows pages 1 - 3 of a 10 page document. to view the rest of the content
background image Legal Studies Final Study Guide Main Topics         Ideas            Important Main Sections (7 Sections) Laws and Techniques: Terry, Brown, Bostick Semifix cycle o Human cry for more law and order
o More energy = more people go to prison
o Pushback:
We have a lot of people in prison Very costly: too much Policing is complicated: cyclical nature How do we make it better o Meant to serve variety of interests
o Community policing: police officers are more engaged on an ever
day level. Not just enforcing the law. Engaging with community Why:  Broken Windows: enforcing low level crimes. Setting the tone in a 
particular neighborhood
o Busting people for minor offenses
o Will be a safer place because low level crimes is where people 
get started o One of the solutions to problem of policing: results in a lot more  arrests o Arrest people early for low level so it does not escalate Solution: police need to be more involved in day to day lives More arrests = solution to the problems get them off the street Mapp v Ohio exclusionary Mapp suspected in hiding a fugitive o fugitive suspected trying to kill someone
o come in with a warrant
o she fights them 
o warrant: need a specific place to look. Looking for a human
cant open drawers then gets busted for pornography o she argues that warrant was looking for a person. Someone in  the house court agrees with her. Terry v Ohio
background image Free or not: o This case created a gray phase between the two Cleveland: Halloween 1963 Terry appealing conviction  Officer McFadden in plain clothes: observes terry and 2 others. Never 
seen them before. 
o Said they did not look right to him
o Used many years of experience
Walk passed stores. Looking into stores and walking past 10-12 minutes. Terry and 2 others meet up. Suspects robbery to happen during the day. o Weapons or guns: there will be people in the store during the day
o Officer suspects they are armed during a “daytime robbery”
Officer approaches: he grabs terry: pats him: feels a hand gun in the 
o Stop and frisk Extracts handgun. Pats down 2 nd  guy: finds another gun  Terry sought to say search was unreasonable. No probable cause they weren’t committing a crime. Just suspicion. Guns were found prior to the arrest Court: The officer had the experience to have a reasonable basis for 
the arrest.
o Stop and frisk Terry appeals are denied. Stop and frisk doctrine o Reasonable articulated suspicions, brief detention, pat down,  questions Justice warren  o Difference between stop and arrest and stop and frisk (gray area)
o State can stop you. Alter your freedom. Frisk and ask questions
o Against stop and frisk
Probable cause is the basis o Officer experience provided a reasonable basis Did not answer his questions Aware of daytime robbery and use of weapons Terry Precedent: o That a police officer may, with reasonable and articulated  suspicion that a crime has just been- or is about to be – 
committed. Briefly detain an individual, ask questions, and 
conduct a pat down frisk when there is a reasonable fear for 
officer or public safety.
background image Brown v Texas Precedence from terry v ohio  o Evidence: allowed to be part of prosecution Evidence in brown v texas: (criminal act) is overturned. o Doesn’t really fit precedence 2 officers in car: see brown and individual walking away from each 
other. Once they see the car they split up in different directions
o high drug area, suspicious Legally stopped by police officer, can ask for ID. If don’t give ID you 
can be arrested
o Not a law in Mass Brown does not give ID o Arrested
o Full blown search. Nothing is found 
o ID himself on way to station
o Charge him with offense
o Appeals on grounds of the 4
th  amendment. That the stop was  unreasonable Arrest should be nullified Texas said: legally stopped: need to provide name Was is a lawful stop? o Under Terry v Ohio Yes: objective facts: high drug area, 2 people split once see
the cop car
Refuse to answer questions: all leads to suspicion 1 st  amendment: the right to be quiet In this instance: not enough to cause an arrest. o Only facts: high drug area. Look suspicious
o Not enough facts
Not a lawful stop under terry: not naming yourself goes away Reasonable searches: but not enough facts to detain someone Florida v Bostick 1991 Ft. Lauderdale: Bostick on a bus from Miami to atlanta. Stops in ft 
Officers come onto the bus: obviously policemen: and armed o Random sweeps of buses: walk down the aisle
o No articulated suspicion
o Ask for ID and ticket: you can refuse. Do not have to answer
Gives them the ticket o Police ask if they can search his luggage: do not have the power  to do so

This is the end of the preview. Please to view the rest of the content
Join more than 18,000+ college students at University of Massachusetts who use StudySoup to get ahead
School: University of Massachusetts
Department: Legal Studies
Course: Intro LEGAL Studies
Term: Fall 2015
Tags: Kropotkin, cases, marraige, jury, Law, and school
Name: Legal Studies 250 Final exam Study Guide
Description: Notes cover materials on Final
Uploaded: 12/16/2017
10 Pages 58 Views 46 Unlocks
  • Better Grades Guarantee
  • 24/7 Homework help
  • Notes, Study Guides, Flashcards + More!
Join StudySoup for FREE
Get Full Access to UMass - LEGAL 250 - Study Guide - Final
Join with Email
Already have an account? Login here