Reference no: EM132170490

Question: Reply to this 150 words

1) Did the police have probable cause to arrest Mayo?

Last week's response I stated I believed defendant Scott Mayo had every right to be armed in Tennessee with a pistol in the bar where he was bartending. I also alluded to the ownership of the weapon belonging to him. Pertaining to the information provided, ownership was never questioned at the scene of the arrest, nor was it explained that the defendant was assumed a felon meaning any possession of a firearm would be illegally possessed. As Mayo was involved in an altercation that disturbed the peace and resulted in the death of another person, the police had probable cause to arrest defendant Mayo. According to Tennessee Constitution, That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime (TN Const. Art 1, Sec 26). Additionally, it should be made known that Tennessee Code Annotated 39-17 also allows for handguns to be in an establishment as long as the bearer is not consuming alcoholic beverages (T.C.A. § 39-17-1321).

2) Did law enforcement violate Mayo's constitutional rights? If yes, explain how. If not, explain why.

It is my belief that yes Mayo's constitutional rights were violated by law enforcement. He was detained and arrested but his Miranda rights were not read to him. He was not informed of the charges against him nor the reason for his arrest. He was deprived of liberty which violated his Fourth Amendment rights (U.S. Const Amend IV).

3) Were the police required to read Mayo his Miranda rights? Discuss why.

The police were required to read defendant Mayo of his Miranda rights as he was detained, questioned, and arrested. Failure to read him his Miranda rights jeopardizes their case against him, and infringes upon his rights. Perhaps he was unaware that he could have a lawyer present during questioning and possible self-incrimination. He would be well informed if he were read those rights. Additionally, he may not have known that law enforcement agents were not allowed to interrogate or question him in an investigative manner without first reading him his Miranda rights. This information provided to police officers could be manipulated to the courts yet coaberated by the witnesses and Mr. Mayo would be charged with a crime more severe than self-defense which self-defense is allowed in the state of Tennessee. Pertaining to the Tennessee Code Annotated 39-11, there is no duty to retreat prior to using deadly force as long as it is a lawful act of self-defense, considering witnesses attested to the fact that the intoxicated Basil Scowen threatened Mr. Mayo's live with bodily harm by outright stating he was going to kill him (T.C.A. § 39-11-621).

Eddie

TN Const. Art 1, Sec 26.

TN Const. Art 1, § 7.

T.C.A. § 39-17-1321.

T.C.A. § 39-11-621.

U.S. Const. amend. IV.