Incident With Police Officers - Essay Example

Question No Two police officers were patrolling in high crime neighborhood. They noticed a parked car with two people inside (a driver and a passenger). The officer saw a young women leaning into the passenger an object, which they could not identify. At this point they approached the car and women began to walk away. One of the officers noticed the passenger making a shoving down motion, leading the officer to believe that the passenger might be armed. The officer drew this gun and shouted, "let me see your hands". After making more shoving down motion, the passenger complied. The officer reached into the car and touched a bugle in the passenger's pocket. He felt a large, hard object, which he believed to be rocks of crack cocaine. He then removed a plastic bag from the pocket. It contained several rocks of crack cocaine that, together with another rock found in the passenger's clothing, totaled almost 100 grams. The passenger was arrested, but the driver and women standing outside it were not. Should the passenger's motion to suppress the seized evidence be granted Answer: While complying with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution the US Supreme Court has established the principle that: "The police must whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure." (Terry v. Ohio)1 Also, in Johnson v. United States2, it was upheld that, "when the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a rule, to be decided by a judicial officer, not by a policeman or Government enforcement agent". Such pre-requisites have been enacted primarily to protect the sanctity of the individual citizen and to prevent the growth and exercise of uninhibited government power. In the US, constitutional protection of the individual against unreasonable searches, and limitation of the powers of the police, apply wherever an individual may nurture a reasonable "expectation of privacy" (Katz v. United States)3. Therefore, a US citizen is entitled to protection of the privacy-extending to contents of closed containers within one's possession and those items carried in person- which one seeks to maintain even in a public place. As such, it may be argued that the person concerned in the given circumstances is entitled to similar protection against unreasonable searches. It must, however, be established whether the search was "unreasonable" within the meaning of law. Under the United States Constitution's Fourth Amendment: "... except in certain carefully defined classes of cases, a search of private property without proper consent is "unreasonable" unless it has been authorized by a valid search-warrant."4 Courts in the US have upheld searches without a search warrant under the following situations: the person searched consents; or the search is limited and is incident to a lawful arrest; or there is "probable cause" to justify a search but the exigent circumstances make it necessary or reasonable to proceed with the search without first obtaining a warrant; or the police are in hot pursuit chasing a suspect who attempts to hide from them; or the police merely stop and "frisk" the person, based on a reasonable belief that the person is armed and presently dangerous. The burden of justifying a search without a warrant lies on the government (Coolidge v. New Hampshire5). In the above situation, the search falls within the ambit of carefully defined classes. First, the person complies with the police officer's move to search. Next, since the locality was a high crime neighborhood, it is reasonable for the police to search the person based on his suspicious movements. Finally, the search was limited and led to a lawful arrest as the person was found possessing illegal substance. Under the US constitutional law, the police cannot justify a search by what it produces nor can an arrest be justified by the fruit of an illegal search. The legality of the search is based of the information known to the police officer immediately before the search began- a requirement explained Johnson, 333 U.S.6. In the above situation, the search is justified by the fact that it took place in a high crime neighborhood, and one of the officers noticed the passenger making a shoving down motion, which led him to believe that the passenger might be armed. Based on this, the passenger's motion to suppress the seized evidence cannot be granted. Question No. 2 On a routine patrol, and officer noticed a parked car. Two people were inside, and they were in a high crime area a bar that was known for gang activity. In the past, the officer had responded to calls from the bar for everything from murder to public intoxication. The officer testified that he stopped to see if the individuals were committing a crime, lived in the area, or had some other concern. When the officer pulled behind the car and illuminated the car with his spotlight, he observed the passenger's fumbling with something on the floorboard. As the officer was checking for indication, he noticed a bullet on top of the console of the car. The officer had the individual step out of the car to ensure that they did not have any weapons after frisking them for weapons, the officer looked in the area where he observed the passenger fumbling with something to see if he was hiding a gun. The officer said he was checking this area for his safety and to make sure that nobody would get hurt. The officer observed a twelve - pack of bear on the floorboard and checked inside for a gun. When he moved the carton, he found a small baggy underneath it containing a controlled substance. Should the passenger's motion to suppress the controlled substance be granted Answer: The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States acts as a guard against unreasonable searches seizures. To protect this constitutional right, the US Supreme Court has established the principle that: "The police must whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure." (Terry v. Ohio)7 Also, in Johnson v. United States8, the court ruled that , "when the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a rule, to be decided by a judicial officer, not by a policeman or Government enforcement agent". Therefore, a US citizen is entitled to protection of the privacy-extending to contents of closed containers within one's possession and those items carried in person- which one seeks to maintain even in a public place. However, Altwater v. Lago Vista establishes that, "If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender"9. In the above situation, the officer was on a routine patrol in a high crime area a bar that was known for gang activity. In the past, the officer had responded to calls from the bar for everything from murder to public intoxication. Hence, this was a routine "frisk". Moreover, precedents have it that vehicles and automobiles have lower expectations of privacy than houses or personal containers because of the clear visibility of their contents. This precedent is mainly derived from Carroll v. United States (1925)10 case, where the Supreme Court upheld the police officers making a warrant less search of an automobile provided they have probable cause to suspect that it contains contraband. This is known as the "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. This is mainly based on two principles. First, the "practical mobility" of an automobile makes it impractical to take the time to get a search warrant from a magistrate, because in that time the vehicle could easily leave the jurisdiction. Second, it is generally presumed that vehicles have a lower expectation of privacy, for they provide clear visibility of their contents, and their main purpose is to transport people rather than storing personal property. Moreover, searches without warrants are acceptable under the following situations: the person searched consents; or the search is limited and is incident to a lawful arrest; or there is "probable cause" to justify a search but the exigent circumstances make it necessary or reasonable to proceed with the search without first obtaining a warrant; or the police are in hot pursuit chasing a suspect who attempts to hide from them; or the police merely stop and "frisk" the person, based on a reasonable belief that the person is armed and presently dangerous. Thus, apart from fulfilling the "automobile exception" clause, the search that took place in the given situation falls within the accepted norms of search without warrants. The search is limited, for the officer had him step out of the car and after frisking for weapons, he searched the interiors of the car and recovered controlled substances. This was preceded by the fact that the officer had found a bullet on the top of the console of the car. Given the high intensity of crime in the given area, the search can well be justified. Moreover, the person did not resist the officer's move to search the vehicle. This means that the search had his consent. As such, the passenger's motion to suppress the controlled substance cannot be granted. References: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 905 (1968) Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14, 68 S. Ct. 367, 369, 92 L. Ed. 436, 440 (1947) Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361, 88 S. Ct. 507, 516, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576, 588 (1967) Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 528-29, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 1731, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930, 935 (1967); Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 370, 88 S. Ct. 2120, 2125, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1154, 1161 (1968). Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 455, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 2032, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564, 576 (1971). Johnson, 333 U.S. at 16-17, 68 S. Ct. at 370-71, 92 L. Ed. at 441-42 Altwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) Carroll v. United States (267 U.S. 132) Read More