MINNESOTA V. RONALD RIFF: A POLICE INCIDENT REPORT

Minnesota v. Ronald Riff: A Police Incident Report Introduction This is a police incident report on how I conducted a search and a consequent arrest of Ronald Riff who was suspected of burglary. It contains the terms of reference for my obtaining of a warrant of arrest, search and arrest of suspects as provided by Amendment IV and the Court guidelines. It also contains a description of the actual search and arrest of the suspect. Terms of Reference According to the Court guidelines, a police officer cannot receive a warrant of arrest and consequently search a suspect’s premises unless the officer has established a probable cause for the arrest. These guidelines have been informed by the Fourth Amendment. I was therefore required to do thorough research to mine information that would render Riff a suspect. Secondly, it is required that an officer being supplied with an arrest warrant takes an oath that the information she or she shall give is factual and true. Therefore, I had a duty to establish to the best of my knowledge that the information I was to supply was correct. Thirdly, the warrant to be issue must be backed by a strong concise description of the person to be searched. In this case I had to give full details of Ronald Riff. If the police officer satisfied these conditions, the warrant should be issued: it must be issued by a judge. In addition, this warrant is does not authorize a general search: It is specific.

 

The Search and Arrest It was on April 20, 2012 at around 0800 hrs when it was reported that robbers had stolen money from Marquette’s Market. As a result, I was tasked by the head of police, Minnesota Police Department, to do the necessary investigation and make arrests the same day. So as to establish any suspects, I began my investigations immediately. I interviewed a few people in the market including the business people and the private security guards. After interviewing the some guards, I was able to establish the registration number of the vehicle that had sped off a few hours ago. The merchants at the market also described one of the men who they saw rushing into the car before it sped off. In addition, earlier that day, the neighbor of Ronald Reef had seen him offload some items from a car that she had never seen Riff with before.  With this information, I had every reason to suspect Mr. Riff and it was logical that I searched his home. However, I needed to have an arrest warrant from the Court judges. At around 1035 hrs, I was able to get a warrant of arrest of the suspect. I therefore began my pursuit immediately. At around 1300 hrs, I went to the suspect’s home but he was not there. The neighbor told me that Mr. Riff was usually at the market during that time; so I went to the market. From the descriptions I had earlier received, I was able to recognize the suspect. When he saw me, he ran towards his house after which I pursued him. I entered his house and searched every room. I was able to find a bag of money amounting to $910,000, checks made from the market and a hammer. Within the first hour after the arrest, I was able to compile my first report which the prosecution was to use to incriminate the suspect

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Curran, P. & Strauch, G. (n.d). Minnesota v. Ronald Riff: A criminal mock trial. Retrieved: http://civicallyspeaking.org/minnesota_riff.pdf

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s