It is apparent all other alternatives will be ineffective.

1.) administrative inspections (random, or robust searches) 2.) with a warrant 3.) with consent – Ferrier rights must be provided 4.) exigent circumstances (Officer safety concerns, potential destruction of evidence)

When an officer has reasonable suspicion, a crime has is or is about to be committed, and can Articulate all reasons for conducting the stop

Ability, Opportunity, Imminent jeopardy, Preclusion

10 CFR 1047

The atomic energy act of 1954

a search is conducted following in arrest and his detailed nature, focusing on discovering criminal evidence, contraband or weapons. A frisk is conducting on the suspects outer clothing, where the officer has articulable safety concerns.

After an arrest and when safe to do so.

Any level of force is a seizure under the fourth amendment. Force must be reasonable to the resistance of the violator.

RCW 9A.16.020

1.) prevent suicide, or injuries to an officer or others 2.) prevent damage to property 3.) make an arrest 4.) stop a trespass 5.) prevent escape

When the offense is committed in the officers presence, or if he/she has Probable cause to believe the individual committed a crime.

When the offense is committed in the officers presence

proprietary jurisdiction.

A criminal act, a criminal intent, and a concurrence of the two.

Any evidence that is the direct result of illegal conduct On part of the official is inadmissible In a criminal trial against the victim of the conduct

Prosecution must retrace every step and place an item of physical evidence has been since it was found

Report of another person’s words by a witness

When the misdemeanor is committed in the SPO’s presence, and to the site barrier only.

When an individual is driving off, road, unauthorized, driving, off-road, while trespassing.

Proof must be provided in addition to testimony

Temporary

Intent + substantial step

Justifiable homicide

To deter law-enforcement from conducting illegal search and seizures, and provide remedies for the rights of those being infringed

October 31, 1963 detective McFadden in Cleveland Ohio observed two individuals acting suspiciously (Peering in a window of a store – leaving – coming) And believed they were casing the store for a possible robbery. Officer McFadden confronted the two individuals.(One of which was John Terry) And begin asking them questions. Unable to form any answers to his questions he physically detained Mr. Terry, and performed a frisk on each individual. They were in possession of firearms concealed illegally., In 1968 the Supreme Court set a precedent that all allows police officers to interrogate in frisks, suspicious individuals without probable cause if the officer can reasonably articulate their reason for doing so., The ruling distinguished between an investigatory stop and an arrest – between a frisk and a search. An officer may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

Mr. Graham was A diabetic having a diabetic reaction. He was traveling with a friend who stopped at a convenience store for him to get some orange juice to counteract the reaction. Grimm entered the store, but left quickly after seeing there were too many people waiting in line, Conor, a police Who saw this occur viewed it as suspicious, thinking perhaps a robbery had occurred. Conner pulled them over to investigate the situation further. Grams behavior during the contact. Was suspicious. Due to the diabetic reaction. Conner handcuffed Graham, and after confirming, no criminal activity had occurred released him., Graham claims that he sustained Multiple injuries from the encounter, and filed the lawsuit against the officer for violating his fourth amendment rights, The Court explained that the reasonable Ness inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one. The court also ruled a use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the same rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

In in 1989 operation rescue stage and anti-abortion demonstration. Police were charged with dispersing and arresting demonstrators who were blocking interest to private medical clinics. The police gave protesters an opportunity to avoid arrest by leaving voluntarily after verbal warning those who refused were given a second opportunity to move voluntarily. Finally the police were authorized to remove demonstrators using pain compliance techniques per their policy. this particular was authorized the use of nonchackus. Several demonstrators received injuries and filed suit, claiming That police violated their fourth amendment rights by using excessive force., The court ruled in favor of the officers. The nature and quality of the intrusion was less significant than most claims of force. The city had a legitimate Interest in quickly dispersing and removing lawbreakers. Finally, the court stated police are not required to use the least intrusive degree of force possible rather the inquiry is whether the force used to affect a particular seizure was reasonable.

On October 3, 1974, Memphis police officers were dispatch to a burglary recall, one officer, witness someone running across the yard the fleeing suspect Edward Garner stopped at a 6 foot high chain-link fence. Using his flashlight, Officer could see Garner‘s face and hands and was reasonably sure the Garner was unarmed. Garner was ordered to stop, but began to climb the fence believing Garner would certainly flee if he made it over the fence, the officer shot him and killed him, Officer acted according to a Tennessee State statute and official Memphis Police Department policy, authorizing deadly force against the flying suspect at the time, The Supreme Court of the United States held at under the fourth amendment, when a law enforcement officers pursuing flank. Suspect officer may not use, deadly, forced prevent escape, unless the officer has probable caused to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious, physical injury to the officer or others , it was found that the use of deadly force to prevent escaping is an unreasonable seizure under the fourth amendment in the absence of probable caused that the fling suspect posed a physical danger. The ruling established what is considered the first and second prom of Tennessee., First prong of Tennessee, V Garner: officers are authorized to use deadly force against any person as necessary in self-defense, or the defense of another, when they have reason to believe they are an immediate danger of death or serious physical harm., Second prong of Tennessee, V Garner: officers are authorized to use deadly force to capture or seize a dangerous suspect when there is probable caused to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm and there is no reasonably safe, means of preventing the suspect escape.

Self Defense

Serious offenses against other persons

Prevent theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of nuclear weapons and explosive devices.

thefts, sabotage, or unauthorized control of SNM, categories, I or II

Apprehension or prevention of escape

Officers are authorized to use deadly force against any person as necessary in self-defense, or the defense of another, when they have reason to believe they or another are in imminent danger of death or serious physical harm .

Officers are authorized to use deadly force to capture or seize a dangerous suspect when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm and there is no reasonably safe means of preventing the suspect escape

It’s use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity when all lesser means have failed, or cannot be employed.