Police civil liability for high risk drug enforcement operations - Essay Example

Marriott v. Smith (1991) Marriott v. Smith (1991) Court analysis and Holding The case “Marriot v. Smith (1991)” involved search of a suspect in the jail. Marriot raised the issue of strip while searching a visitor at jail suspected of carrying drugs in a correctional environment. One of the amendments by court on search warrant respect search in detention centre to ensure safety. Court respects the decision that the correction environment must be kept away from introduction of contrabands.

Though the court respect and recognises the importance of search in correction environment, law enforcement officers do not have permission to contact search without a search warrant (Kappeler, 2006). In this case, the plaintiff went regularly to visit her brother. The law enforcement officer noticed that the inmates started smoking marijuana. Due to this the officers planed to record the conversation between the inmates and the visitor at the visiting room. The plaintiff promised to bring stuff to the brother because she had smoked all of it.

The next visit the police watched to see if the visitor exchanged anything with her brother but they could not see. The officer detained the plaintiff and was taken to a room for search. In the process, the officer did not have a search warrant. Unavailability of search warrant made the plaintiff to issue a claim under section 1983 against the officer. The plaintiff filed a case against the officer due to contacting search without a search warrant. The officer had violated the Fourth Amendment right by contacting a search without a search warrant (Kappeler, 2006).

In the case, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff because the officer had violated the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment. The court held that the plaintiff was searched at the time she was coming out of the visiting room. The plaintiff had no risk of introducing drugs to the correction environment. When the plaintiff was searched she had completed the mission in the visiting room and was going out. The action of the officer in detaining and contacting search to the plaintiff was not reasonable and there was no exception to hold him innocent in the case.

Finally, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff because the officer did not produce enough evidence why he had contacted the search. The plaintiff was declared innocent though it was true that she brought marijuana to the correction environment (Kappeler, 2006). Decision I totally agree with the court decision because the officers acted unprofessionally. They searched the plaintiff at the time of exit. There is no evidence to show that the officers were protecting the correction environment from contraband (Kappeler, 2006).

Police Action In this case if I were the police officer, I could have acted differently in order to avoid violation of the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. After recording the plaintiff and noticing that she will bring the marijuana in the next visit, it was necessary for the officer to acquire the search warrant (Kappeler, 2006). The officer was supposed to acquire the search warrant before the plaintiff visits her brother. The officer was supposed to search the plaintiff on entry to check the items which she had brought.

If the officer could have acted this way, he could not have been in trouble. Reference Kappeler V. E. (2006). Critical Issues in Police Civil Liability, 4th Edition. New York: Waveland Press.