The “fellow agent” rule allows an officer to rely on information provided by other officers in the event of an arrest.1 This doctrine is not required by law; Rather, it is based on the U.S. Supreme Court`s decision Whiteley v. Supervisor, 401 U.S. 560 (1971). In this case, the Supreme Court held that “police officers who are asked to assist other officers in carrying out warrants may assume that officers seeking assistance have provided the judge with the information necessary for an independent judicial assessment of probable cause.” 2 The Florida Supreme Court reviewed its counterpart`s decision in Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1995). The Court generally recognized that the rule was that “information shared by officials investigating a crime is attributed to one of its members, including information from various agencies working together.” 3 The Court further recognized that the doctrine of fellow officers was “general” in its application, subject to the restrictions imposed by the analysis of the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.4 Unlike the Officers` Rule, the Officer Support Act requires that the officer requesting assistance has already developed a probable reason for the arrest or has already observed all elements of the crime.19 A The undercover investigator may assume this Fundamental role.20 O nce the process of creating a lawful arrest has begun,21 d officials can ask for help or order anyone to make the arrest, including substitute officers,22 and, through the plain language of the law, even an ordinary citizen.
The collective knowledge doctrine, or “quid pro quo rule,” provides that, in certain circumstances, the submissions of multiple officers may be aggregated to determine the probable cause of a search or seizure without a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment. The rule applies when officers act jointly and officers cumulatively have sufficient knowledge to establish a probable reason for the arrest of a particular suspect. A rule that an arrest is considered valid and supported by probable grounds, even if the arresting officer did not have sufficient personal knowledge of the facts to provide a probable reason, as long as the arresting officer is acting on the basis of the sufficient knowledge of another police officer or the collective knowledge of the law enforcement agency. In determining the probable cause of arrest under the officer`s co-worker rule, an officer has the right to rely on hearsay, even if that hearsay would be inadmissible at trial.15 A public servant may also have the right to rely on other evidence that would be inadmissible at trial. including privileged information.16 However, if the original official relied on information that was later found to be inaccurate, a probable reason may be distorted, making the arrest unlawful.17 In order to facilitate the necessary work of police officers, various legal principles have been developed pursuant to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to assist in determining probable cause. In Florida, in particular, courts often rely on two principles to determine whether there is a probable reason for arrest: the fellow officer rule and the “assistance to officers” law. However, lawyers who present these arguments to the courts often confuse the two and do not understand the parameters and appropriate use of both. This confusion likely stems from the fact that the two rules will overlap in their application in some factual scenarios. Yet Florida law recognizes each rule as different and, in many circumstances, completely independent of each other. Simply put: This suggests that other officers may use another officer`s knowledge to get a clearer picture of the events unfolding and leading to the arrest, including hearsay from potential witnesses who are not eligible for court. Basically, this rule can be misused as a “loophole” for civil rights by overly aggressive law enforcement agencies.
He says each case is an unknown mystery to arriving officers and is updated in the process, they may even add and collect inadmissible “evidence” to charge someone. (See related cases of Florida v. Bowers and Herring v. United States). According to the colleague`s rule, it is assumed that each agent acting within a team has all the information known to the team members. This rule has been used regularly to determine probable cause of arrest for criminal offences. But in 2013, the Washington State Supreme Court refused to extend the co-worker rule to misdemeanors. These scenarios become clearer when you look at a few common specific examples. For example, in Florida, a police officer is generally not authorized to arrest a person for an offense committed outside of his presence. Often, however, an officer may observe some of the elements of the crime while a partner observes the remaining elements. Or in other cases, an officer may observe the offense but be arresting another person.
Therefore, the officer can then ask another officer to come to the scene to make one of the arrests. If the general rule on misdemeanours applied, the two arrests by the second officer would not be allowed. However, in both cases in Florida, these arrests would in fact be legal, as explained in this article. Under the co-worker rule, even without his or her personal knowledge, a police officer may make a lawful arrest, which is sufficient to establish a probable reason, provided that the officer acts “on instructions or as a result of communication with” a colleague or other police service that has sufficient information to justify a probable reason for the arrest. Information obtained from another police officer is likely to be reliable. However, when an arrest is challenged by a request for repression, the burden of proving that the officer providing the information had a probable reason to act. The Assistance Act applies to all offences, including offences, misdemeanours26 and even traffic offences.27 However, if the observer or first official is not legally authorised to make an arrest for no probable reason or for other reasons, the Assistance Act is not triggered at all.28 In this circumstance, the state should rely on other theories to make arrest legal.29 Constitutional principles prohibit the legal capacity of law enforcement officers to make arrests. Arrests without warrants are closely scrutinized to ensure that citizens` rights are protected. In order to make a lawful arrest of any kind, it must at some point be determined that there is a probable reason for the arrest. Often, however, a single official is unable to prove first-hand the general circumstances leading to probable cause.
Instead, the agent must rely on other agents to put the whole puzzle together. In addition, an officer often has to rely on ordinary citizens to help them make lawful arrests. The Fourth Amendment protection, which applies in Florida court proceedings, requires review courts to carefully review arrests without a court order. The Co-workers Rule and the Officer Support Act are useful tools in this analysis. In order to avoid the obvious widespread confusion about the scope of these commandments, prosecution and defence counsel must be familiar with the parameters of these principles in order to effectively present their arguments to the judges questioning them. q Hypothetically, you have a police officer who, while driving his car in front of an intersection, observes a person selling crack cocaine around the corner, he points to another patrol car following right behind him to arrest the person. Can he do that? How is this legal? This is exactly the question that was negotiated in Washington by James Maesse. There in court, the question was whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances known to the other officers involved in the investigation, including the one who had ordered the arresting officer to arrest the accused, the arresting officer had a probable reason to arrest.
Since section 901.18 applies to each individual person, it is irrelevant whether the assistance officer is within his or her area of responsibility.23 However, contrary to Rule 24 of the colleague, the person assisting him must in fact be summoned by the requesting officer for the purpose of aiding in the arrest.25 If the person assisting him is exclusively an unsolicited volunteer, The safe harbor of § 901.18 does not arise: to authorize the arrest. Although most cases in Florida dealing with the co-worker rule involve information obtained from other officials, at least one appeals court has ruled that this information was provided by any employee of a law enforcement agency, such as: 11 However, case law requires that there be a traceable link between the original source of information and the arresting officer.12 However, The information does not have to be effectively disclosed to the arresting officer as long as the information is available within law enforcement agencies.13 Once the information has been received by one officer, it will be disclosed to all others. 14 F.S. § 901.18 is another useful tool available to law enforcement officers to make lawful arrests. This law allows an officer who is making a lawful arrest to call any other person to the crime scene to assist in making the arrest. Although an appeal decision referred to section 901.18 as a “collegiate rule”,18 its legislation is clearly not the codification of the colleague`s rule announced in the Whiteley and Johnson precedents. On the contrary, this legal provision extends the scope of the colleague`s rule to all persons who are not only law enforcement officers in a limited area: when an official is already making a lawful arrest. This rule is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of “collective knowledge”.5 According to this doctrine, probable cause is determined by the collective knowledge of all agents, even if no single official has sufficient information to establish probable cause.6 It allows arresting officers to rely on the knowledge of other officers. even if these agents do not belong to the same authority or jurisdiction.7 Indeed, the other agents may even be in another State.8 If information is received, the arresting officer may assume that the information has a reasonable basis in the truth.9 The information may take the form of an oral instruction or a form of written communication.10 1 State v.
