Four Suspects: One Legal Stop - Essay Example

Four Suspects: One Legal Stop YOUR FULL THE OF YOUR SCHOOL OR Four Suspects: One Legal Stop Facts. Duringa routine patrol after a robbery, two police detectives observe four men loitering beside a vehicle in an area of predominately abandoned apartment buildings which are located in a high-crime area. Upon seeing the officers, the men quickly move to their car and drive off. Suspecting a violation of the local loitering laws and curious about the recent robbery, the officers stop the vehicle. During questioning at the scene, officers see firearm clips in plain view within the interior of the vehicle. The suspects are unable to provide consistent reasons for being in the area, and the officers advise them of their rights. Subsequent questioning reveals that the subjects are offering conflicting statements regarding their presence in the area, and the officers arrest the suspects for loitering and prowling. A search of the vehicle reveals that it contains stolen property from the robbery. The police officers acted properly in stopping the vehicle and the recovery of any stolen property may be used as evidence in the trial of the suspects. Reasonable Suspicion. While police officers have no right to harass or detain citizens without probable cause, they do have broad latitude in deciding if individuals at a particular scene may be questioned when circumstances warrant a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. There are two things that contribute to a justifiable cause for reasonable suspicion; the actions taken by individuals when they see police officers and the areas in which they are located when they encounter law enforcement. When a person runs from the police while in a dangerous area, the officers have a duty to investigate. The United States Supreme Court has specifically stated that "mere flight is not enough to create 'reasonable suspicion,' but...when the flight is 'unprovoked' and can be shown to have taken place in a 'high crime area,'" an officer is justified in stopping and frisking the individual (Williams, 2000, p. 381). In fact, the Chief Justice wrote that "[h]eadlong flight-wherever it occurs-is the consummate act of evasion: it is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing, but it is certainly suggestive of such" (Williams, 2000, p. 381). In this case, the officers were patrolling a high-crime area after news of a robbery. When the four subjects saw the officers, they immediately got into their car and drove away. This act of evasion, combined with the location of the activity, gave the officers completely reasonable suspicion of the need to investigate further. Their pursuit of the individuals was proper and legal. Reasonable Officer Conduct. Police officers are vested with significant authority over citizens. With that power comes the responsibility to act lawfully and reasonably. When police officers act reasonably and in good faith, they have latitude in the evidence they discover. The law says that any evidence uncovered by an illegal search is not admissible in a court of law. The reason for this rule is to "deter unconstitutional police conduct" (Feinman, 2000, p. 315). It must be noted, however, that even if the police do conduct an unreasonable or unlawful search, the evidence they uncover is still useable in the prosecution of the suspect if the police believed they were acting lawfully. Feinman goes on to point out that when police officers find evidence "in a good faith belief that their acts are constitutionally permissible, the criminal process should not be denied the benefits of using the evidence" (2000, p. 315). Here, the police officers acted reasonably and appropriately. Having encountered the suspects loitering in a high-crime area, then seeing them attempt to evade, the officers made a legal stop. During the course of speaking with the subjects, the officers attempted to discover the truth of why the suspects were in the area. As discussed below, the search of the suspect's vehicle was lawful; but even if it was found to be illegal, the fact that the officers conducted themselves in a reasonable manner and operated in good faith would permit the proper introduction of anything they found as evidence. Reasonable Search Incident to Arrest. Once an arrest has been made, police officers have every right to conduct a search of the immediate vicinity of the scene, including a vehicle, in order to protect themselves from harm and preserve any evidence that might be obtained. This is called a search incident to arrest, and the courts have established that: There are two reasons for making a search incident to arrest. First, officers need to take any weapons away from an arrestee that could be used to resist arrest or harm officers or the subject. Second, officers need to prevent destruction of evidence. (Saltzburg, 2003, p. 145) In the case at hand, having established a reasonable suspicion for questioning the subjects and placing them under arrest for loitering and prowling, the officers saw firearm magazine clips laying in plain sight within the vehicle. Subsequent to the arrest, and with reasonable suspicion that the four subjects might be involved in other criminal activity, the observation of the loaded clips gave the investigators rational cause to think that weapons were present and that their safety might be in jeopardy. Accordingly, they properly searched the vehicle's interior and exterior to verify that no weapons were within reach of the subjects. During this lawful search, they discovered stolen property from the robbery that had been recently reported. They had every right to seize that evidence so that it could not be discarded or destroyed prior to investigation of the suspects. Accordingly, the evidence was obtained properly and is untainted. The police officers in this case acted appropriately. They had a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed, and they conducted themselves in an appropriate manner during the apprehension, questioning, and arrest of the suspects. When their reasonable search was made as an incident to the arrest, they obtained evidence of stolen property. They made a legal stop which yielded clear evidence of a crime and the prosecutor can go to trial with confidence. References Feinman, J. M. (2000). Law 101: Everything You Need to Know about the American Legal System. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Saltzburg, S. A. (2003). The Supreme Court, Criminal Procedure and Judicial Integrity. American Criminal Law Review, 40(1), 133-162. Williams, C.F. (2000). U.S. Supreme Court Trends. Social Education 64(6), 380-392. Read More