Unit 3 discussion responses
1. It will always be preferable as an officer to make an arrest with a valid warrant rather than without one, as it covers any ‘hiccups’ or possible mistakes. When making an arrest without a warrant, the officer runs the risk of possible misconduct on their part, by performing an illegal search and seizure. With a warrant, it covers anything that could be considered an infringement, by giving permission to search someones self or property, as well as what they can seize, including arresting the offender. When warrant directions are properly followed, the offender will be notified and provided a copy of their arrest warrant, showing any proof behind the reason of their arrest. The offender cannot claim anything was infringed upon, or that misconduct/targeting was used, as there was review and confirmation prior on the court’s part. One of the most significant personal advantages an officer has when making an arrest with a valid warrant is not running the risk that a judge may later disagree with their actions. When working off of a warrant, there is no longer a risk of later suppression of evidence, charges on the offender being dismissed, and there is no longer civil liability for Fourth Amendment violations. Basically, the officer and the information/evidence collected is not at risk when working with a valid warrant, making it safer for the officer personally.

2. Why is it preferable that an officer make an arrest with a valid warrant rather than without one?

At the time of making a search, it is 100% more preferable to have a warrant before starting the process. This is because a court order is an authorization issued by a competent official, generally, a judge or magistrate, that allows an otherwise illegal act that would violate individual rights to be carried out while also protecting the person issuing the writ from damages if the act is carried out. In other words, having a warrant supports an official in the search and protects him from any harm that occurs during the search. In addition, having a warrant helps ensure that all the evidence found or obtained during the search is used while if the search is done illegally, the evidence could be eliminated. If a search is made without a warrant, everything found would be considered illegal.

Discuss the most significant personal advantage an officer has when making an arrest with a valid warrant over making that arrest without one.

When conducting a search with a court order (warrant), everything that happens during the process will be supported. In other words, when an officer makes a search, it is likely that if the person who is being suspected does not open the door, he or she will have to find another entry option and sometimes physical damage occurs in the place where the search is being made. Personally, I believe that the most significant advantage of an officer at the time of having a judicial order in a search, is that he/she is supported by any damage that happens during the search. In addition, this court order protects the evidence and the officer’s conduct. In short, the officer is protected that his acts are not identified as illegal.

3. It is a preferable that an officer make an arrest with a valid warrant because it can prevent any mistakes that may occur. If an officer makes an arrest without a warrant he can run into some problems. Those problems include misconduct, wrongful arrest, and illegal search and seizure among others. If an officer has a warrant, it can clear all these problems and the officer will not face any issues. Also, a suspect has his or her rights and without a warrant they do not need to respond to the officer. One of the biggest advantages an officer has when making an arrest with a warrant is that during trial the judge can not question the arrest. The arrest would have been done right and under a warrant. Along with that, with an arrest warrant, the evidence that can be collected from a warrant will not be thrown away. As long as an officer gets a warrant there should be little to no problems during the process.

4. Although a warrant can slow down the process of an arrest, arrest warrants protects officers in an important way. According to the textbook, ” If a warrant is proper on its face and officers do not abuse their authority in obtaining or executing the warrant, they have qualified immunity against civil liability for damages, even though the warrant is later determined to be invalid” (Fredico, Pg.244). A warrant is that extra form of security to save themselves just in case they run into problems. A warrant may only be issued on a sworn complaint. A personal advantage to an officer when making an arrest with a valid warrant is, if the suspect cannot be found there is help with locating the suspect. the warrant can be entered into a local or national database and if another officer locates them they can make the arrest. Also if the arrest is made under a warrant there is less questioning of probable cause.

5. First, why is it preferable for an officer to make an arrest with a valid warrant rather than without one?

When police officers make an arrest without a warrant, a judge does not have the opportunity to determine in advance whether the police have probable cause for the arrest. However, the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment remains the same. For a suspect to remain in custody after an arrest, the police must quickly convince a judge or magistrate that he has probable cause for the arrest.

Many arrests are made without a warrant, of course. However, where the circumstances permit When you make a warrantless arrest based on your own evaluation of probable cause, you run the risk that a judge will later disagree with your decision and may determine that the suspect was arrested in error. If that happens, there are risks of suppression of evidence, dismissal of charges, and civil liability for violation of the Fourth Amendment.