Criminal Procedure Essay

One whitethorn well enquire How can you advocate breaking some honourablenesss and obeying others? The answer lies in the occurrence that there are two types of laws equitable and unjust. I would be the scratch to advocate obeying just laws. One has non only a legal but, a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. Martin Luther King, Jr.Imagine a entire society, where the population had a standard set of rules and followed them. In that perfect society, everyone knew the rules down to a specific science hence, they knew how to obey said rules. alas in our time, we do non have a perfect society. Our purification has lost the knowledge of their rights unless either a.) laws were broken by an individual or b.) the individual is studying or examining criminal law. Either way, our society inadvertently forfeits their rights in certain situations. On the other hand, there are law enforcement officeholders who have sworn to uphold these rights to nurse their position. Some do not know themselves, when they have crossed the line of duty or profaned a right. It is up to us to break down and identify the lustiness and righteousness of the policeman smith & The Gold Pontiac situation we are presented with. commonsensical intuition is a standard used in criminal procedure, to a greater extent relaxed than presumptive cause, that can justify less-intrusive look fores. A average suspicion exists when a commonsense person under the place settings, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed ( healthy Suspicion, Cornell police force School Library 2013). incumbent smith pulled over a gold, older model Pontiac because she noticed immortalize on what she suspected to be broken. One might wonder why policeman smith pulled the Pontiac over. In most states, the number one wood is held accountable for faulty equipment of their vehicle. Unle ss the tape is red, reflective and transparent, an military military officer has every right to pull the number one wood over and issue a ticket. In my own experience, it is highly likely for a police officer to pull someone over if there was an prohibition of a head or taillight. I myself have been pulled over for something same in which I received a warning or ticket. On her way to the drivers window, police officer smith remembers the description of a vehicle that was recently snarly in a roadside cleanup of another police officer.That description fit with the Pontiac she had just pulled over. incumbent Smith proceeds to ask the driver to get out of the vehicle so she may conduct a quick pat down for weapons. tally to the Fourth Amendment, a justifiable search begins with reasonable suspicion. In this case, military officer Smith asks the driver to endure a die and frisk. This means, the officer had the right to ask for a quick pat down of the drivers outer clothi ng in search of a weapon(s). In my belief, the drivers rights were not violated and valid based on the officers request for a stop and frisk. Nothing smuggled has happened between the two. If, during the pat down for weapons, the officer feels a weapon on the individual, the officer accordingly has probable cause to conduct a spot search. (Roberson, Wallace & Stuckey, 2007 p.83)In our example, a weapon was not felt or be on the driver. Furthermore, Officer Smith has now conducted whats known as a terry Stop. What is the difference between a Terry Stop and the Stop and Frisk you ask? There isnt each significant difference. Prior to Terry Vs. Ohio (1968), a stop and frisk protected against illegitimate search and seizure. Where as after, it is come to be known as constitutional according to contexts where a reasonably suspicious officer has a valid concern for societies or his/her safety. After the Terry Stop, Officer Smith directed the driver to have a seat in the vehicle and asks for their driver license and registration. I would think that this procedure is sanely standard in identifying who the driver is and maybe writing out a ticket for the taillight tape. The driver had other plans and speeds away from Officer Smith without giving requested information. It is to my knowledge that Officer Smith has more than reasonable suspicion now. She has probable cause to believe that the driver was in fact, the killer from the incident shed heard about.With probable cause, Officer Smith proceeds to chase the Pontiac. The chase ends when the driver of the Pontiac hits a telephone pole. You may stop to ask me What is the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion? From my understanding of the two, probable cause is grounds for a warrant or for an arrest. Reasonable suspicion is not but, it may be grounds to pass on investigate or for a police officer to detain a person or vehicle for further investigation (Florida pronounce University constab ulary Review, Summer (2006), Vol. 33, Issue 4, 1239-1248). Im compelled to agree with officer Smith in this instance. The driver demonstrated reckless behavior, presenting exigent circumstances for Officer Smith to give chase to this vehicle. According to The Cornell Law Library, an exigent circumstance is a circumstance that requires an immediate response.It occurs when police officers believe they have probable cause and there is no time to obtain a warrant. (Exigent circumstance), Cornell Law School Library 2013) Being that the chase ended with a surd crash, Officer Smith did respond immediately to the situation. Furthermore, our scenario goes on to explain that Officer Smith feared that the car might catch on fire from the leaking gasconade tank. She pulls out the driver from the vehicle and goes back to get her purse for identification. It is then that Officer Smith sees that the glove box has popped open and in it was a part with documents on top of it. We are asked to thi nk about if the composition was in plain view and if it was de jure obtained? Since I am just a Criminal Justice student, I would have to say plausive to both. I say that in full confidence because it is legal for an officer to enter a vehicle at the motion-picture show of an accident to process without an issued search warrant. Without rummaging through the vehicles contents, the officer sees a weapon or narcotics. point with the use of a flashlight, it is still considered legal.Just because something is hidden behind darkness, doesnt mean it wouldnt be seen during daylight, right? The other permissible circumstance regarding the plain view doctrine is, if the officer moves him or herself around to take a look. The object in plain view (without a complete(a) search) can be seized and is admissible evidence in court. The fact that the blast was seen through the documentation clearly shows that it was in plain view and didnt have to be searched for. Officer Smith goes on to find the drivers purse. In an attempt to localise the drivers identification, she finds a baggie of Marijuana in the drivers purse. Although I do not believe that this will uphold as evidence in this case, it may present the driver with another set of charges against her. Perhaps the driver may get charged with possession of an illegal substance?However, I sincerely feel that Officer Smith did not have the right to search for anything other than the drivers license, even though she did find the Marijuana in the purse. In my studies it would be considered Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. Although Officer Smith was legally allowed to enter the vehicle without a search warrant and assist in identifying the driver, I believe that the retrieval of the cannabis will not be permissible in court for the reasons Ive stated above. Our scenario also goes on to state that it was later found that this vehicle was not the vehicle involved in the death of the officer. It also states that it was dete rmined that the taillight was not in fact broken.One might question or argue at this point, whether the entire scenario is justifiable or necessary? From my point of view it was in all correct. The officer had a valid reason to pull the car over. She had reasonable suspicion for a Terry Stop. Her reasonable suspicion then off-key to probable cause when the driver fled the sight without presenting the officer with what shed asked for. The officer then acted within a responsible manner to help the driver out of the crashed vehicle. After all, law enforcement is there to protect and serve our community. The firearm was in plain sight of the officer while she tried to locate the drivers identification. Nothing except the search and seizure of the contents of the purse violated the rights of the driver nor incriminated the police officer.It is in my belief that Officer Smith couldve called for backup or help once she found the scene of the accident. She couldve taken the purse out of t he vehicle and even seized the gun. However, she had time to obtain a warrant to search the purse. In instances like we have just gone through, it is interesting to see just how knowledgeable each fraud is with their rights and responsibilities. We see these cases often in the news and some do not even make it to trial because either a right was violated or a piece of evidence was gathered with some mistake made in obtaining it. Dont interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.- President Abraham LincolnReferencesExigent Circumstance Def.1, In Legal Information Institute, Cornell Univeristy Law School Libarary. Retrieved February 13, 2013, fromhttp//www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstancesPlain placement Doctrine Def.1, In Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School Library. Retrieved February 15, 2013, from http//www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plain_view_doctrineReasonable Suspicion Def.1. In L egal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School Library. Retrieved February 13, 2013, from http//www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicionStuckey, G., Roberson, C., & Wallace, H., (2006). Procedures in the Justice System (8th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ Pearson/Prentice Hall.Florida State University Law Review, Summer (2006), Vol. 33, Issue 4, 1239-1248, Retrieved February 14, 2013, from http//www.heinonline.org.lib.kaplan.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/flsulr33&div=61