Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay
Paper Formatting
Double or single-spaced
1-inch margin
12 Font Arial or Times New Roman
300 words per page
No Lateness!
Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay
Our Guarantees
Free Unlimited revisions
Guaranteed Privacy
Money Return guarantee
Plagiarism Free Writing
"objective standard of reasonable force"
What is the importance, if any, of officer intent and motive in the "objective standard of reasonable force" under the current state of the law? Contrast the definition of probable cause with that of reasonable suspicion. Complete the following questions: Compare and contrast Fourth Amendment stops with full custodial arrests. Explain four ways arrests are more invasive than stops. Identify the scope and time frame of "incident" to arrest. Describe the Robinson rule and the justification for it. According to the Supreme Court, how broad is the scope of a consent search?
Sample Answer
Objective Standard of Reasonable Force
Officer intent and motive have no importance in the "objective standard of reasonable force" under the current state of the law, as established by the Supreme Court in $Graham$ v. $Connor$ (1989).
The standard is purely objective. The inquiry is whether the officer's actions were "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation (e.g., malice, ill will, or desire to punish). The factors considered are:
The severity of the crime at issue.
Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others.
Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
Reasonableness must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, allowing for the fact that police often make split-second decisions in rapidly evolving, tense, and uncertain circumstances.
Stops vs. Arrests
Fourth Amendment stops ($Terry$ stops or investigative detentions) and full custodial arrests are both seizures, but they are compared and contrasted based on their duration, intrusiveness, and the level of justification required.
Feature
Fourth Amendment Stop (Detention)
Full Custodial Arrest
Justification
Reasonable Suspicion
Probable Cause
Duration
Brief and temporary, lasting only as long as necessary to confirm or dispel suspicion.
Extended, potentially lasting for hours or days (until booking and release/arraignment).
Scope of Search
Limited to a pat-down frisk of outer clothing for weapons only.
Authorizes a full search of the person and the area within their immediate control.
Freedom of Movement
Restrained; the person is not free to leave, but the detention is temporary and locationally limited.
Complete deprivation of liberty; the person is taken into custody, handcuffed, and transported to a station/jail.
Four Ways Arrests Are More Invasive than Stops:
Duration and Finality: An arrest is a substantially longer deprivation of liberty than a brief $Terry$ stop, which must cease once reasonable suspicion is dispelled.
Physical Restraint and Location: Arrests involve being handcuffed and physically moved to a police station or jail for processing (booking), stripping away freedom in a way that is not characteristic of an on-the-street stop.
Scope of Search: An arrest permits a full search of the person (including pockets and personal items), whereas a stop only permits a limited pat-down for weapons.
Consequence: An arrest leads to a criminal record (booking and fingerprinting) regardless of the eventual disposition of the case, a consequence not triggered by a mere investigative stop.
⏱️ Scope and Time Frame of Search Incident to Arrest
The search incident to arrest (SITA) exception is defined by limitations on both its physical area (scope) and the time during which it can be conducted (time frame).
Scope: The search is limited to the person of the arrestee and the area within the arrestee's immediate control (their "lunge area" or "wingspan"). The purpose is to allow the officer to remove any weapons and to prevent the destruction of evidence. For vehicles, as limited by $Arizona$ v. $Gant$, the passenger compartment may be searched only if the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance, or if there is reason to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.