Was the arrest of Mayo a legal arrest? Discuss why. Please include the components of a reasonable arrest and whether or not they were met with Mayo.
Yes, I believe Mayo’s arrest was a legal arrest.  A “reasonable arrest” consists of two elements; Probable cause (Objective basis) and the arrest were made in a reasonable manner. Probable cause requires that law enforcement possesses enough facts and circumstances to reasonably believe that a crime has, is or will be committed; and the person arrested has, is or will be committing a crime. Probable cause can simply stated as, under the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement officers believe that it is more than likely than not that the individual in question has, is or will be committing a crime. In this case Mayo made a statement under the idea that it was self-defense based on the actions of the deceased. Based on the witness testimonies and the knowledge that there was a debt own to the deceased in the sum of  $1500 dollars and the fact that Mayo did not retreat. The totality of the circumstances, the police had probable cause to make an arrest. 
Did law enforcement need an arrest warrant prior to arresting Mayo? Discuss why. Make sure to support your thoughts.
No, law enforcement did not need an arrest warrant prior to arresting Mayo. There was Probable Cause and based on the totality of the evidence, taking into the consideration that there was a debt owed to the deceased and the fact that Mayo did not attempt to retreat from Scowen gave the police probable cause to make the arrest. I believe the officer used the exception to an arrest warrant with the search incident to Lawful arrest A search incident to lawful arrest does not require issuance of a warrant. In other words, if someone is lawfully arrested, the police may search her person and any area surrounding the person that is within reach (within his or her “wingspan”). See Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). 
Can law enforcement seize the broken beer bottle and the gun without a search warrant?
Yes, law enforcement can seize the broken bottle and the gun without a search warrant. First of all the local establishment was a public place, which The Fourth Amendment does not extend to public places such as streets, parks, and other publicly owned areas. Public places also include privately owned businesses open to the public, except that ‘employee only’ areas such as offices and restroom or any other area not open to the public and thus are protected by the Fourth Amendment. There is plain view doctrine which is an exception to the warrant requirement that allows a law enforcement officer to seize items that he or she observes from a lawful vantage point, to which he or she has a lawful right of access, and which are immediately apparent as contraband or evidence of a crime. In this case, I believe the fact this was a public place with the plain view exception to seize the broken beer bottle and the gun does not require a search warrant. If Mayo left the scene of the crime and went home with the handgun there would be probable cause and a search warrant to search his home specifically for the gun used in the shooting at the bar.
Apus Staff. (n.d.). Lesson One. Crime Control in a Constitutional Democracy, Criminal. Retrieved from
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)

Order your essay today and save 20% with the discount code: RESEARCH