Case Responses
Case Scenario 1
The case scenario under analysis involves an event of search and seizure. Notably, two police officers patrolling a high-crime neighborhood noticed a suspicious activity taking place between two people. As they approached the individuals, one of the officer’s noticed the passenger in the car, making a shoving motion, which led him to have reasonable suspicion that the passenger was armed. In response to the situation, the officers ordered the passenger to show his hands and conducted a pat-down. During the frisk, the officers recovered 100 grams of crack cocaine from the suspect’s pockets, which was sufficient to be used as evidence in the court of law. While the Fourth Amendment protects the suspect against the warrantless search, the passenger’s motion to suppress the seized evidence should not be granted because the officers had reasonable suspicion to search, while the nature of the search was minimally necessary.
The passenger’s motion to suppress the seized evidence should not be granted because reasonable suspicion was involved in the action. As referenced in a similar criminal case, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants police officers the privilege to stop and frisk suspects if they have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, or is committing, or is about to commit a crime, and “has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous” (“Terry v. Ohio,” n.d). Thus, put into context, the officers acted in accordance with reasonable suspicion. Firstly, a careful exploration of the activity between the passenger and the woman leaning into the passenger’s window raised suspicion among the officers, which led them to approach the car. Secondly, when the passenger made a shoving down motion, it raised suspicions among the officers that he may be armed. The two accounts created a reasonable suspicion, which led to the search. While some of the actions of the suspect were not consistent with the officers’ hypothesis that the passenger was armed, the fact that he was in possession of crack cocaine proved the hypothesis that unusual activity was taking place. Thus, based on such facts, that there was reasonable suspicion; hence, the passenger’s motion should not be granted.
Furthermore, the passenger’s motion to suppress the evidence should not be granted because the minimally necessary search was used in action. Notably, under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, people are protected from unreasonable searches (Brady, 2016). Thus, if applied in the case scenario, it may be argued that the officers may have violated the amendment by conducting a warrantless search without a probable cause. However, the amendment also grants officers the right to frisk suspects in the event of reasonable suspicion. The argument against the motion, in this context, is based on the fact that the search, which constituted a frisk to confirm the suspicions, was in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. Notably, the officers touched the passenger’s pockets and removed the plastic bag, which contained rocks of crack cocaine. The search eventually led to the seizure of the evidence, which would be used in the court of law. Therefore, since the search was minimally necessary, and in accordance with the Fourth Amendment, the passenger’s motion to suppress the seized evidence should not be granted.
Overall, the way the crack cocaine in the case scenario was obtained matches the provisions of the Fourth Amendment; thus, the passenger’s motion to suppress the evidence should not be granted. Notably, reasonable suspicion was involved in the action, which led to the pat-down. In addition, minimally necessary search, frisking the passenger to confirm the suspicion, which is stipulated in the amendment, was used. For these reasons, the evidence should be used during the suspect’s trial.
References
Brady, M. (2016). The lost “effects” of the Fourth Amendment: Giving personal property due protection. The Yale Law Journal, 125(4), 796-1149.
“Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)” (N.d). Justia US Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/#16
Case Scenario 2
Just like the first case scenario, the second case involves an action of search and seizure. During his patrol in a high crime area, an officer saw two people in a car parked near a bar that had a history of murders and public intoxication, which raised the suspicion that the individuals may have been engaging in illegal activity. While inspecting the car, the officer noticed a bullet hole on the top of the console. In addition, he observed that one of the passengers was fumbling with an unidentified item on the car’s floorboard. In response to the situation, the officer frisked the individuals for weapons and proceeded to search one of the areas in the car, in which he found a bag of a controlled substance. Although the officer’s search and seizure were in accordance with the Fourth Amendment, triggered by an on-the-spot observation, the motion to suppress the evidence should be granted because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion and a clear hypothesis, and there was a break in the chain of custody.
The judge should grant the motion because an unreasonable suspicion and unclear hypothesis were involved in the action. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “the right of the people to secure their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” unless in the event of a probable cause (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d). Furthermore, it is argued that a warrantless search can be conducted in an exigent circumstance. However, an analysis of the case scenario and the argument presented by the officer reveals neither a reasonable suspicion that the individuals had committed, were committing, nor were about to commit a crime (“Terry v. Ohio,” n.d). Instead, the officer frisked the individuals for weapons because there was a bullet on the car’s console, and based on the fact that they had parked a car in a high-crime area. Besides, there lacked a clear hypothesis for the search. Notably, the officer claimed that he stopped the individuals for several reasons, including to “see if they were committing a crime” and whether they lived in the area. Thus, since the search involved an unreasonable suspicion and unclear hypothesis, the motion should be granted.
The motion should also be granted because the case involves a break in the chain of custody. The chain of custody is a process of evidence of documentation, which proves the authenticity of the evidence, from the scene of the crime until its use in the court (Badiye, Kappor & Menezes, 2019). Unless it is complete and authentic, evidence seized by officers may not be used in court. Hence, put into context, there lacks verification about the individual in possession of the controlled substance during the time of the seizure. Notably, the officer observed the passenger fumbling with something on the floorboard, and later discovered a 12-pack of beer and a bag of a controlled substance in the area. However, there lacks clarity on the ownership of the drugs, since there were two individuals in the car during the search and seizure. Hypothetically, the passenger may have been fumbling with the bottles of beer without knowledge about the bag of drugs beneath the cartoon. Since there lacks verification of the chain of custody of the controlled substances in the case scenario, the judge should grant the motion to suppress the evidence.
In summary, the motion to suppress evidence in the case scenario should be granted because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion, and there was a break in the chain of custody. Notably, there lacked clarity concerning ownership of the drugs and reasonable suspicion for the search and seizure. For these reasons, the evidence should not be used during the trial.
References
“Fourth Amendment” (N.d). Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment
“Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)” (N.d). Justia US Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/#16
Badiye, A., Kapoor, N., & Menezes, R. (2019). Chain of custody (Chain of Evidence). Treasure Island: FL, StatPearls Publishing.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
