Holden Caulfield 's Arrest On Drug Charges Essay

Police officers use search and seizure as a tool to ensure their safety, gather evidence, and arrest suspects. In police training, a search is defined as an examination of a hidden place, i.e. a person or their property, whose purpose is to find contraband (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). A seizure is defined as the capture or arrest of a person or the confiscation of property (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). Depending on the individual situation, a warrant may or may not be required to conduct searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule, which states that illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in court, has guided the definition of search and seizure, specifically as it pertains

Stops and frisks are searches and seizures, so officers have to back them up with suspicious facts and circumstances. But, they’re “minor” ones, so they require fewer facts and circumstances than arrests and searches to back them up. (Samaha, 2015)

“"Stop and frisk" is a practice that permits a police officer to stop any individual if the officer has reason to believe "criminal activity may be afoot"” (Fallon, 2013, p. 321). There are many cases that ruled in favor

In the case of State of New Jersey v. Pedro Soto, et. al., the attorney for the black defendants moved to suppress evidence from traffic stops deemed to be discriminatory enforcement of the traffic

Case Procedural History: Roy Caballes tried to suppress the drugs seized in the stop by claiming that the state troopers did not have probable cause to search his vehicle. The trial judge denied the motion to suppress the seized marijuana. The trial judge held that the use of the drug dog did not prolong the duration

crime. If at the time of the traffic stop when she noticed that the taillight was not an

There could be several issues that arise with law enforcement seizing evidence from the passenger. Did law enforcement have a reasonable belief that the suspect had control of a weapon and that the suspect was also dangerous? Was the search of the passenger unconstitutional and did law enforcement invade the passenger’s privacy? Another thing to consider is if the evidence seized was part of the original reason for the officer conducting

The initial stop was legal due to the factor that the officer thought the taillight was nonoperational. Officer Taylor was allowed to frisk the driver when the officer suspected the driver may have committed a crime, and the factor of the driver speeding off gave him right to pursue. The weapon was in plain view and the marijuana is admissible in court because the driver was being arrested for fleeing. Search and seizure laws protect citizens, but in this case, the driver isn’t protected when they don’t conclude the initial traffic

Facts: August 7, 1999, a car occupied by three men, Donte Partlow (driver and owner of vehicle) accused Pringle (front seat passenger), and Otis Smith riding in the back seat, were ultimately pulled over by a police officer for driving over the speed limit. Upon the officer approaching the vehicle, he asked to see Partlow’s license and registration, and as the defendant opened his glovebox, a fairly large sum of money was exposed in the amount of $763. The officer then returned to his patrol car to check Parlow’s license to ensure he had no warrants of anything outstanding, Partlow came out clear, so he issued Partlow a verbal warning. Upon arrival of the second officer he asked if they minded he search the vehicle, Partlow had no issues and agreed to the search. The police not only found the $763 in the glove compartment but also five glassine Baggies of cocaine stashed behind the backseat armrest. The officers questioned the men as to who the cash and drugs belong too, none of them took ownership, the officers advised them that if no one claim the drugs and cash as theirs, they all would be arrested and charged. So, all three were arrested and taken to jail. Later on, in the morning Pringle decided he would waived his Miranda rights, then made a full verbal and written admission that the cash and drugs were his

Larry was transported by AMR to Chino Valley Community Hospital. At Chino Valley Hospital, Larry claimed that he was Tased and was complaining of pain to his stomach and back. Larry was not Tased by OPD officers. I looked at Larry’s stomach and back and did not see any redness nor any visible injuries. I read Larry his Miranda rights from my department issued Miranda card. He said “yes” to all four questions indicating that he understood them. Under Miranda, Larry told me that today in the morning, his girlfriend, Stephanie Perez, dropped him off at work and they got into an argument. Larry said the argument was over Perez wanting to leave him. I asked Larry if he threatened Perez in anyway and he said no he did not threatened Perez. Larry said today at approximately 1730 hours, he was picked up by Perez from work. Larry said they drove to a check cashing place so he could cash his check. Larry said he and Perez got into an argument. The argument was again about Perez wanting to leave him. Larry said he took the vehicle key from the vehicle and went inside the store, preventing Perez from driving away. I asked him if he saw the police unit. Larry said yes he did however he was scared and did not want to be detained or arrested because he did not do anything wrong. Larry said he several times heard police officers telling him to stop running however he did not want to get arrested. Larry said he

Did Officer McFadden act with reasonableness to initiate an investigatory stop and frisk of Terry? Yes.

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent

Stop and frisk has two components that define the stop element as well as the frisk element. The stop element is defined as when a law enforcement officer briefly detains an individual, and the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur, and ask questions of the individual regarding a preliminary investigation and excludes the requirement of probable cause (Bethel, 2015). Furthermore, the frisk element may be conducted if the officer has reasonable suspicion the individual has a weapon, and is performed as a limited pat-down search of the outer clothing on the individual detained by the officer (Bethel, 2015). If a weapon is discovered, the officer is authorized to conduct a more in-depth investigation.

Evansville Police say body camera video proves one of its officers did not act improperly during a traffic stop. It stems from an incident in August that involved former city councilwoman Stephanie Brinkerhoff-Riley.

1. Did officer Smith have reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop of this vehicle?