Did the police have probable cause to arrest Mayo?
The officer did have probable cause to arrest Mr. Mayo. A crime had been committed, officers had enough facts and circumstances that solidified the arrest.  He may have also posed a threat to others around him but given the totality of circumstances the officer were justified in making an immediate arrest. They fulfilled the two requirements for a reasonable arrest which according to the lesson are probable cause and that the arrest be made in a reasonable manner.
2) Did law enforcement violate Mayo’s constitutional rights? If yes, explain how. If not, explain why.
By not reading Mr, Mayo the Rights Advisement. The officers failed Mr. Mayo and themselves under the Fifth Amendment which offers the right against self-incrimination that is to remain silent and to have a lawyer present during questioning. As a result, the statements made could be inadmissible in court.
3) Were the police required to read Mayo his Miranda rights? Discuss why.
Yes, Under the Fifth amendment the accused must be notified of their right to remain silent or seek counsel before any interrogation proceedings. They then have the option of not making a statements, waiving their right to remain silent and speak to Law Enforcement without a Lawyer present. Any statements made without that advisement could be thrown out in court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *