Search and Seizure, Violation or Justified?

By Nesha Smith CJ 227 Criminal Procedure June 18, 2013

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares that people must be secure in their homes and in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures (Schmalleger, 2011). This amendment provides rules for law enforcement to guide their actions when searching a person or property so that unlawful entry is not made and people are protected from harassment. Stuckey states It must be stressed that not all searches are prohibited, only those that are unreasonable (2006, p. 53). The importance of the Fourth Amendment is to inform U.S. citizens of their rights and to provide guidelines for law enforcement to govern their actions, as they governed Officer Smiths actions. During a routine night patrol, Officer Smith observed a vehicle that appeared to have a broken taillight. It is assumed that Officer Smith was concerned for the safety of the motorist and others sharing the road, Officer Smith directs the driver to pull over. It is at this point that Officer Smith has legal right to stop the vehicle. A broken or unlit taillight is a traffic violation and could result in a ticket or at minimum notification. At this point Officer Smith has probable cause to detain the driver and request identification. As Officer Smith approaches the vehicle, she recalls an alert involving the same car description involving a police shooting. Officer Smith asks the female driver to step out of the car and pats her down. Officer Smith was justified in patting down the driver due to Officer Smiths concern for her safety. Schmalleger provides an example to justify the pat down as an emergency search of a person may be warranted when, for example, he matches the description of an armed robber. Such searches can save lives by disarming fleeing felons (2011, p. 236).

Officer Smith allows the driver to return to her vehicle and requests drivers license and registration. Instead of complying with the request the driver speeds off. In the 2004 case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, however the court upheld Nevadas stop and identify law that requires a person to identify himself to police if they encounter him under circumstances that reasonably indicate that he has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime (Schmalleger, 2011). Officer Smith peruses the vehicle in a high speed chase that ends in an accident. Due to the emergency situation of the driver being unconscious and gas leaking from the vehicle; Officer Smith removes the driver from the vehicle to a safe distance. If the driver was not severely harmed or unconscious, Officer Smith would at that point arrest the driver for evading a police officer and reckless driving at high speeds. An emergency search may be warranted when, he is found unconscious. Searches can save lives by uncovering a medical reason for an emergency situation (Schmalleger, 2011). Officer Smith returns to the vehicle to obtain identification of the driver. Upon entering the vehicle a gun is visible in plain sight inside the open glove box. Officer Smith retrieves the gun and removes the drivers purse. Evidence found in plain view is admissible as explained by Stuckey not only must the officer be lawfully located in a place from which the object can be plainly seen but he or she must also have a lawful right to access to the object itself (2006, p. 60). Stuckey as states that there is a lesser expectation of privacy when dealing with vehicles (2006, p. 63). Officer Smith opens the purse to remove the identification and finds a baggie of marijuana, which at that point is seized by Officer Smith. Stuckey explains in the case of New York v. Belton "it held that when an officer has made an arrest, he may search the passenger compartment of that automobile including the contents of any containers found within the

passenger compartment (2006, p. 63). The marijuana is admissible since police officers do not need a warrant to make a search incident to arrest. After an arrest, a search of the person and the persons surroundings following the arrest is valid and any evidence uncovered is admissible at trial (Bergman & Bergman-Barrett, 2000). Its concluded that Officer Smith acted in good faith and upheld the Fourth Amendment rights of the driver. Officer Smith had probable cause to pull the driver over due to a traffic violation. Officer Smith had reasonable suspicion to ask the driver to exit the vehicle and pat her down to ensure Officer Smiths safety. The driver continued to violate the law by fleeing the scene and driving recklessly at high speeds. Upon arriving at the accident and addressing an emergency situation, Officer Smith removed the driver from the vehicle. Officer Smith returned to the vehicle to retrieve the identification that was requested prior to the accident and upon plain view observed a gun in the glove compartment. Officer Smith seized the gun and removed the drivers purse. Officer Smith opened the purse for the drivers identification due to emergency situation of an unconscious person. Officer Smith found and legally seizer the marijuana due to a legal right to search the purse. In my opinion all evidence should be admissible in court.

References

Bergman, P., & Bergman-Barrett, S. J. (2000). The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System (3rd Ed). Berkeley, CA: Nolo Press. Osterburg, J. W., & Ward, R. H. (2010). Criminal Investigation: A Method for Reconstructing the Past (6th Ed.). Newark, NJ: Lexis Nexis / Anderson Publishing. Schmalleger, F. (2011). Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the 21st Century (11th Ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Stuckey, G., Roberson, C., & Wallace, H. (2006). Porcedures in the Justice System (8th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.