Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
C
Citruscide
Guest
Again taken from my notes.... The terminology D is Defendant.
• Warrantless arrests: A lawful arrest may be made without a warrant, but the arresting officer must act on facts sufficient to constitute “probable cause.”
• Arrest in public places: US v. Watson
• Facts:
• Watson (D), identified by a reliable informer as a possessor of stolen credit cards, was arrested without a warrant during a prearranged meeting between D and the informer.
• D was searched, but no cards were found.
• D consented to a search of his car after receiving Miranda warnings, and two stolen credit cards were found.
• D was convicted, despite his motion to supress.
• D appealed, and the court of appeals reversed. The Government appeals.
• Issue: May an authorized law enforcement officer make a warrantless arrest in a public place despite an opportunity to procure a warrant after developing probable cause for arrest and when authorized by statute?
• Held: Yes. Judgement reversed.
• (a). The common law rule permitted a police officer to arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor or felony committed in his presence as well as for a felony not committed in his presence if there were reasonable grounds for making the arrest. This rule survived the 4th Amendment and is permitted by most states.
• (b). The arrest was based on probable cause, occurred in a public place, in the daytime, and the officers acted in strict compliance with the governing statute and regulations conferring arrest authority.
• (c). The judicial preference for an arrest warrant should not be transformed into a constitutional rule. Therefore, neither the lack of exigent circumstances nor the possibility of obtaining a warrant are sufficient to invalidate the arrest and subsequent consensual search.
• CONCURRENCE: (Powell): This result merely recognizes historical experience and practical considerations. Warrantless arrests were permitted at the adoption of the 4th Amendment. Changing the rule now would severely hamper law enforcement.
• DISSENT: (Marshall, Brennan): The arrest and search both are intrusions on protected rights and should be conducted only with a warrant. Common law allowed arresting officers to make an arrest when a felony was committed in their presence, but the class of crimes that today constitute felonies is larger and comprises many crimes that never were felonies at common law. The police would not be hampered by the warrant requirement since once probable cause for an arrest exists, it usually continues into the indefinite future, and therefore a delay in obtaining a warrant for the purpose of gathering more evidence would not hamper law enforcement. The effect of the majority opinion is to weaken the probability that warrants will ever be obtained for felony arrests.
C-ditty
• Warrantless arrests: A lawful arrest may be made without a warrant, but the arresting officer must act on facts sufficient to constitute “probable cause.”
• Arrest in public places: US v. Watson
• Facts:
• Watson (D), identified by a reliable informer as a possessor of stolen credit cards, was arrested without a warrant during a prearranged meeting between D and the informer.
• D was searched, but no cards were found.
• D consented to a search of his car after receiving Miranda warnings, and two stolen credit cards were found.
• D was convicted, despite his motion to supress.
• D appealed, and the court of appeals reversed. The Government appeals.
• Issue: May an authorized law enforcement officer make a warrantless arrest in a public place despite an opportunity to procure a warrant after developing probable cause for arrest and when authorized by statute?
• Held: Yes. Judgement reversed.
• (a). The common law rule permitted a police officer to arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor or felony committed in his presence as well as for a felony not committed in his presence if there were reasonable grounds for making the arrest. This rule survived the 4th Amendment and is permitted by most states.
• (b). The arrest was based on probable cause, occurred in a public place, in the daytime, and the officers acted in strict compliance with the governing statute and regulations conferring arrest authority.
• (c). The judicial preference for an arrest warrant should not be transformed into a constitutional rule. Therefore, neither the lack of exigent circumstances nor the possibility of obtaining a warrant are sufficient to invalidate the arrest and subsequent consensual search.
• CONCURRENCE: (Powell): This result merely recognizes historical experience and practical considerations. Warrantless arrests were permitted at the adoption of the 4th Amendment. Changing the rule now would severely hamper law enforcement.
• DISSENT: (Marshall, Brennan): The arrest and search both are intrusions on protected rights and should be conducted only with a warrant. Common law allowed arresting officers to make an arrest when a felony was committed in their presence, but the class of crimes that today constitute felonies is larger and comprises many crimes that never were felonies at common law. The police would not be hampered by the warrant requirement since once probable cause for an arrest exists, it usually continues into the indefinite future, and therefore a delay in obtaining a warrant for the purpose of gathering more evidence would not hamper law enforcement. The effect of the majority opinion is to weaken the probability that warrants will ever be obtained for felony arrests.
C-ditty
