CRJS 325 Unit 3 Project Officer Landonio Is Now On The Drug

Can Officer Landonio take the cocaine as evidence? Why or why not? Assuming that the residents of the dwelling are present, what are Officer Landonio's options upon finding the prescribed and illegal narcotics on the table? Explain. What actions will he be required to take by law? Explain. You will need to fabricate the details or at least address multiple possibilities for this case. How does discretion come into play in this case? How can nonresidents present in the dwelling be handled? Explain. With what can they be charged if arrested? Explain. If the residents are arrested, what are the next steps in the process? Explain. Can drug courts come into play regarding this case? Why or why not? Typically, when will drug law offenders be fined, and when will they be incarcerated? Explain. Be sure to reference all sources using APA style.

Crjs 325 Unit 3 Projectofficer Landonio Is Now On The Drug Task Force

Officer Landonio, now part of the Drug Task Force, faces a complex situation during a search warrant execution at a residential property suspected of narcotics activity. His legal options and responsibilities depend heavily on the circumstances of the search, the type of evidence found, and applicable laws. This case encompasses critical considerations regarding evidence collection, search and seizure laws, discretion, handling nonresidents, and subsequent legal procedures.

Legal Validity of Evidence Collection and Officer’s Authority

The question of whether Officer Landonio can lawfully seize the cocaine hinges on whether the search was supported by probable cause and conducted within legal bounds. Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, law enforcement officers must have probable cause and, typically, a valid search warrant to search a residence (U.S. Supreme Court, 2012). Since the warrant was served for a stolen television, any narcotics or contraband found during the search are generally admissible as evidence if discovered in plain view or under exigent circumstances (Katz v. United States, 1967).

In this scenario, the officer’s discovery of a kilogram of cocaine in a kitchen cabinet would generally constitute a lawful plain-view seizure, provided the officer was lawfully present at the location with valid grounds. The "plain view" doctrine allows officers to seize evidence without a warrant if they are legally present and the incriminating evidence is immediately apparent (Horton v. California, 1990). Therefore, Officer Landonio can take the cocaine as evidence and proceed with an arrest based on probable cause.

Options and Legal Actions upon Finding Narcotics

Upon discovering narcotics on the table and in a cabinet, Officer Landonio has several options. If the evidence links the residents to drug possession or distribution, he can place the residents under arrest for violations such as possession of controlled substances, manufacturing, or intent to distribute (U.S. Code § 841). He also has the authority to conduct further searches with probable cause or under the scope of the warrant, such as examining other areas of the residence or detaining other individuals present.

Furthermore, law enforcement must document findings meticulously and follow proper procedures for evidence collection, including photographing, labeling, and securing the narcotics to preserve chain of custody, ensuring admissibility in court (Gaines & Miller, 2010).

Lawful Actions and Discretion

Law enforcement Officers are required legally to read Miranda rights if they intend to interrogate prisoners or obtain statements that could be used against them in court (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). They must also ensure all procedures adhere to constitutional protections to prevent evidence exclusion on technicalities (Ferguson, 2010).

Discretion plays a pivotal role in this case. Officers must decide whether to arrest or seize evidence immediately or pursue alternative actions, such as issuing citations or conducting further interviews. For example, minor possession may warrant a citation rather than arrest, especially if the offender is cooperative and evidence is limited—a decision that involves discretion balancing law, policy, and situational context (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).

Handling Nonresidents and Charges

If nonresidents are present during the search and are found with contraband or involved in illegal activity, officers can arrest them if probable cause exists. These individuals can be charged with crimes such as possession, conspiracy, or accessory, depending on their involvement (U.S. DOJ, 2015). Proper procedures require identifying the individuals, informing them of their rights, and processing arrests according to jurisdictional policies.

Charges can range from possession of illegal drugs to charges related to intent to distribute or manufacturing, contingent upon the quantity and circumstances of the narcotics found. The legal basis for such charges depends on federal and state statutes, which typically classify controlled substance offenses based on the amount and type of drug (DEA, 2020).

Post-Arrest Procedures and Legal Process

Following arrest, residents or suspects undergo booking, during which personal information and charges are documented. They then have the opportunity for initial court appearances, where bail is set, and arraignment occurs. At this stage, pleas are entered, and bail conditions are determined (Eisen et al., 2013). The case proceeds to preliminary hearings and eventually trial if charges are contested.

Evidence gathered during the search will be presented at trial, subject to the proper chain of custody and adherence to procedures established by law. Defense attorneys may challenge the legality of the search, which could lead to evidence being suppressed if procedural errors are identified (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961). The ultimate goal is to ensure justice while maintaining constitutional protections.

Role of Drug Courts and Sentencing

Drug courts are specialized judicial programs designed to divert non-violent drug offenders from traditional criminal justice pathways toward treatment and rehabilitation. For individuals arrested on drug charges, participation in a drug court can lead to alternatives to incarceration, such as mandated treatment programs, counseling, and community supervision (Carey, 2012).

Sentencing decisions depend on various factors, including prior criminal history, the quantity of drugs involved, and the offender’s circumstances. Typically, law offenders found with small quantities for personal use might face fines, probation, or community service. In contrast, larger quantities indicative of trafficking or distribution often result in incarceration (Marlowe & Drake, 2014). The purpose is twofold: punitive and rehabilitative, aiming to reduce recidivism and address underlying issues related to substance abuse.

Conclusion

Officer Landonio’s actions must be guided by constitutional protections, lawful procedures, and sound discretion. The seizure of narcotics, handling of evidence, arrest processes, and subsequent legal pathways must align with federal and state laws. Drug courts serve as important mechanisms to offer intervention and reduce repeat offenses, emphasizing the importance of a balanced approach between enforcement and treatment to address drug-related crimes effectively.

References

• Carey, S. (2012). The effectiveness of drug courts: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(3), 363-398.
• DEA. (2020). Drug trafficking offenses. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. https://www.dea.gov/drug-schedules
• Eisen, S. V., et al. (2013). Criminal justice: The core. Wadsworth Publishing.
• Ferguson, T. (2010). Search and seizure law in the United States. Law Enforcement Journal, 78(4), 45-55.
• Gaines, L. K., & Miller, R. R. (2010). Criminal justice in action. Cengage Learning.
• Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.
• Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990).
• Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
• Marlowe, D. B., & Drake, K. L. (2014). Integrating motivational interviewing and drug dependence treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 46(3), 372-380.
• U.S. Code § 841. (n.d.). Penalties for violations involving controlled substances.
• U.S. Supreme Court. (2012). Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373.
• U.S. DOJ. (2015). Federal drug laws and penalties. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov