Scott Mayo and Basil Scowen Case Study

Instructions

Part I

The Fourth Amendment sets limitations to stop and frisk and arrests. It also affords individuals to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. This discussion asks you to examine probable cause and illegal searches and seizures.

Please thoroughly discuss each of the following:

1. A police officer must have probable cause to arrest an individual.  How much probable cause is needed to secure an arrest or search warrant? What is the difference between a stop, a frisk, and an arrest? 
2. What is the exclusionary rule? Discuss the exceptions to the exclusionary rule.

Part II

Using the facts provided to you in the Week One discussion, answer the following questions:

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

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

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

Week 1 Reading

Scott Mayo worked as a bartender at The Local Watering Hole. One night at work, Scott got into an argument with Basil Scowen. Mayo owed Scowen $1500.00. The argument heated up and afterwards, Scowen picked up a beer bottle threateningly and appeared to be intoxicated, Mayo grabbed a pistol kept behind the bar and fired at Scowen, killing him. Mayo says Scowen told him, “I am going to kill you,” and what he believed was imminent danger from Scowen.  

Mayo was placed under arrest. He was not read his rights. He was transported to the local county jail. The prosecution witnesses are the police officer, who came to the scene and took statements from Mayo, and a frequent bar customer, Dawn Dietz, who witnessed some of what happened. The defense witnesses are the defendant, Mayo, and Joe “the fireman”, who was outside and saw some of the action through the window while sitting on the patio.