what evidence do police need to make and arrest?
342789
none... they can arrest anyone they want to.... however, they need something to hold you on and that is another story.... but to arrest you and haul you to jail... they need nothing other than their desire to do it. They are the law and that is the bottom line... but they need to charge you with something in a certain amount of time although they can hold you without charging you for probably 24 hours... or so... depending on where you are located. \nMany foreign countries can pick you up and hold you forever..... and probably no one but them will know you even exist.... be glad you are in the US... you at least have a chance at defending yourself in court....
1109770
Run and slam your head into the concrete, you'll have all the evidence you need. LOL
462806
The officers cannot conduct a search without a warrant or without probable cause, unless there are specific special circumstances.\n\nGenerally, the police can pull you over for any suspicion.  Expired tags, no front plates, broken taillight, etc.  If they then "smell" something suspicious (i.e., pot or alcohol), they can then search your car under suspicion of possession or DUI.  If they place you under arrest, they can basically search every inch of your car.\n\nIf they ask if they can search your car YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY NO!!!!!  If you consent to a search, they have the ability to search your entire car.\n\nIf they simply give you a ticket and search your car without consent, they have violated your rights.  If they find any evidence in your car, it cannot be used against you in court.  If they found nothing or no charges were placed against you, you should still make a complait to the police department they were from. It will go in their file and it may help someone else (or you) defend themself in the future.
371588
As an ex cop I can assure that they can in certain cases. Most officers search you to check for weapons and if they find drugs in the process, then it's a valid charge. There are some places where they have to have your consent to search, like your home but if it's your vehicle and you're arrested they have to inventory the car so that is a valid search. If they have probable cause like seeing marijuana or something in plain view, then you can be arrested. If they stop you and want to look in your trunk, unless there exigent circumstances, like they think theres a person you're holding captive in there or an animal, then they can search without a warrant. A pat-down search is legal for officer safety reasons. To search things like your bags or glove compartment they need your consent again, unless you've been arrested. If they have reason to believe that you are going to reach for a weapon they can search the immediate area. Best thing to do is not to carry illegal things my friend. Cops are savvy and we take no chances. If you break the law, you deserve to go down but I do believe in protecting peoples civil rights as well. I always protected my prisoner's rights because I may to make a judgement due to the situation and what has to be done, but I am not judge, jury and executioner and most police officers try to keep this in mind. Even if I didn't like a person I'd dealt with before, I was still fair and respectful unless they gave me a reason to get tough with them. Good luck.
985496
ask a judge or police officer to explain it.
107964
call the police department and they can tell you if they have any of that on record. that is public information especially something like that. just call they will tell you of where to call if they can not help you.
391940
Well, if each break in has been reported, there has to be police records. I'd start with the local police department and ask them how you can go about finding out.
229633
Evidence is Evidence and there is no such distinction between police evidence and legal evidence (i.e. illegal search and seizure, fruit of the poisonous tree, etc...).\n\n"The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g. oral or written statements, such as an affidavit) and exhibits (e.g. physical objects) or other documentary material which is admissible (i.e. allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative proceeding (e.g., a court of law)."\n\nAny evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search or seizure is inadmissable against the accused.\n\nIf the government finds additional evidence through the use of inadmissible evidence, then that additional evidence is also inadmissible. The additional evidence is called "fruit of the poisonous tree,” because if the initial search is tainted, then all evidence branching out from that tainted search is also tainted. For example, if a  Police Officer conducts an impermissible search of a wall locker and finds a safe deposit key, that safe deposit key is inadmissible.  If the Police Offer then obtains a search warrant from a  magistrate and opens the safe deposit box, the contents of that safe deposit box are "fruits of the poisonous tree" and are also inadmissible.\n\nAlthough enacted in the eighteenth century, the language of the Fourth Amendment has never been changed. The Fourth Amendment was not an important part of American jurisprudence until this century, when courts created a rule that excluded from trial any evidence obtained in violation of its terms:\n\nThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.  The next important term contained in the Fourth Amendment is that of "probable cause." Probable cause exists when there are reliable facts that indicate that evidence will be found in a particular location\n\nThe person who is called upon to determine probable cause must, in all cases, make an independent assessment of facts presented before a valid finding of probable cause can be made. Conclusions of others do not comprise an acceptable basis for probable cause. The concept of probable cause arises in many different factual situations.  Numerous individuals in a command may be called upon to establish its existence during an investigation. Although the text of the Fourth Amendment would indicate that only searches performed pursuant to a warrant are permissible, there have been certain exceptions carved out of that requirement, and these exceptions have been classified as searches "otherwise reasonable." Probable cause plays an important role in some of these searches that will be dealt with individually in this chapter.\n\nThe Fourth Amendment also provides that no search or seizure will be reasonable if the intrusion is into an area not "particularly described." This requirement necessitates a particular description on the warrant of the place to be searched and items to be seized. \n\nConsequently, the intrusion by government must be as limited as possible in areas where a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy.  The " exclusionary rule" of the Fourth Amendment is a judicially created rule based upon the language of the Fourth\nAmendment. The United States Supreme Court considered this rule necessary to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials: in effect, the exclusionary rule was created to enforce the Fourth Amendment.\n\nThe sole basis for the law of search and seizure has been stated to be the protection of the individual's privacy from governmental intrusion.\n\nThe "chain of custody" is a concept in jurisprudence which
104599
Go ask the local police.
361101
When a persons been arrested he is subject to search incident to that arrest. The search requires no warrant. Who did he ask for a lawyer? It's not the policeman's responsibility to provide the lawyer it's the court that does that. As far as having "grounds" he was under arrest, the officer doesn't need grounds! The search is justified because he is arrested. Whether anything was found has no bearing on whether or not the search was justified. This is the law, the Supreme Court has upheld it. We appreciate the service to our country but that has nothing do do with the crime he was arrested for.\nFurthermore since this person was arrested for filing a false report "lying" how much of his story should we actually believe?
945194
Provide the complete documents and convince the policemen to log the incident of the missing laptop.  If they refuse, report them to their superiors so that appropriate actions will be made.
985589
Local police have the first say in dictating everything. Rule of thumb is be subordinate to official demands by first responders.Hold these people accountable for they're actions at all costs.Track they're actions and reactions up the chain of command to hold them liable. Then you might have a legitamate claim if you've been harmed(physically or monitarally).Time and patience will reveal the truth.
1107508
What evidence might that be?
135404
try going to a police station for info.
262608
Ask you local police department.
723957
If someone breaks the law they can be arrested.  If they haven't broke the law a fake charge can always be made up to arrest them.\n\nCoach
524611
This REALLY depends on a case.\nBut here is some guesses as to WHO MIGHT be needed\n1. Private Investigator -- if the police already "convicted" you in their mind and won't look for extra evidence that supports your case\n2. Good general witnesses in particularly the ones that can supply yo u with an alibi(they seen somewhere else)\n3.  Good characters witnesses\nAnd finally\n4. Your family and friends to support you during the  tough time.\n\nas to WHAT\nI would recommend a LOT of money. It will definitely help. Ask your lawyer how.