Officer Makin’s arrest of the student were invalid
1.
No, Officer Makin’s arrest of the student were invalid even though the university police officer acts as a state officer as per New Jersey v T.L.O., 468. U.S 1214 (1985), and did not require a probable cause, but can instead search upon reasonable suspicion, the officer infringed on the student’s rights under the Fourth Amendment by arresting him. Instead, he should have stopped and frisked the student, and upon finding the evidence of the commission of a crime, detained him until full-fledged police officers responded to make an arrest. Notably, the officer did not act erroneously in acting on the anonymous tip on the commission of illegal activity, as it was suitably corroborated to have a “sufficient indicia of reliability” as per Florida v J.L hence met the reasonable suspicion standard advanced in Terry v Ohio, 392 U.S.1 (1968).
2.
Yes, I would admit the evidence based on the good-faith exception. As per the Fourth Amendment, the search was not illegal even despite the absence of a search warrant. In light of the appreciation of the totality of circumstances under the law, such a warrantless search is not necessarily an illegality since the officer had obtained consent from the person in charge of the premises, and the situation fitted the description of an emergency which threatened the loss of evidence. Additionally, the police do not need a warrant to seize goods reasonably believed to have been stolen, and other contraband in plain sight. Even when a warrant is issued, any other evidence of the commission of another crime not related to the particulars of the warrant is also subject to seizure.
3
Yes, the evidence is admissible in court under stop and frisk. The evidence will not be suppressed since the based on the totality of the circumstances; there was cause for reasonable suspicion for the officer to believe the suspect had committed a crime as he acted nervously and was incoherent about his activities upon questioning. Such suspicious behavior, as per Terry v Ohio, 392, U.S.1 (1968), justifies the stop and frisk of the suspect, and consequently, his detention until a fully-fledged police officer makes a formal arrest.
4.
The primary responsibility of the defense lawyer in the U.S system of justice is to represent the accused during the criminal proceedings. This is in recognition of the need for the preservation of justice and constitutional rights of a defendant to a fair hearing and the right to counsel as per the Sixth Amendment. Notably, in representing the accused, the defense lawyer is the first line of defense for the defendant when facing the state. Hence, the defense lawyer argues on behalf of the accused by challenging the evidence given by the prosecution and highlights its shortcomings, to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant. Additionally, the defense lawyer seeks bail on behalf of the accused and may plead mitigation in case of a conviction of guilt.
The defense lawyer also generally offers legal advice to the accused and assists them during the various stages of the proceedings as not all persons are acquainted with court proceedings as envisioned by Justice Black in Gideon v Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). Justice Black recognizes the right to counsel and legal aid to the accused, as without it, the accused may be wrongfully convicted as he does not know how to establish his innocence.