Due Week 6 And Worth 100 Points Officer Jones Asked The Neig

Due Week 6 And Worth 100 Pointsofficer Jones Asked The Neighborhoods

Officer Jones asked the neighborhood’s regular trash collector to put the content of the defendant’s garbage that was left on the curb in plastic bags and to turn over the bags to him at the end of the day. The trash collector did as the officer asked in order to not mix the garbage once he collected the defendant’s garbage. The officer searched through the garbage and found items indicative of narcotics use. The officer then recited the information that was obtained from the trash in an affidavit in support of a warrant to search the defendant’s home. The officer encountered the defendant at the house later that day upon execution of the warrant.

The officer found quantities of cocaine and marijuana during the search and arrested the defendant on felony narcotics charges. Write a one to two (1-2) page paper in which you: Identify the constitutional amendment that would govern Officer Jones’ actions. Analyze the validity and constitutionality of officer’s Jones’ actions. Discuss if Officer Jones’ actions were justified under the doctrines of plain view, abandonment, open fields, or border searches. Use at least two (2) quality references.

Paper For Above instruction

The actions of Officer Jones are primarily governed by protections under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment requires that law enforcement officers obtain warrants based on probable cause before conducting searches or seizures, except in certain exceptions recognized by law. To evaluate whether Officer Jones's actions were constitutional, it is necessary to analyze the legality of his collection and subsequent search of the trash, as well as the warrantless search of the defendant's residence.

The collection of garbage from the curbside generally falls under the exception of abandonment. The Supreme Court in California v. Greenwood (1988) held that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in trash left at the curb for collection because the act of discarding items voluntarily relinquishes privacy rights. Therefore, Officer Jones’s action of retrieving the defendant’s garbage from the curb is justified under the doctrine of abandonment, and such collection does not violate Fourth Amendment protections.

Once the trash was collected, the officer examined its contents, which contained items indicative of narcotics use. The officer then used this information in an affidavit to obtain a search warrant for the defendant’s home. The subsequent search and discovery of illegal substances, leading to the arrest, are justified provided the warrant was issued based on probable cause derived from the trash findings. This process aligns with the "plain view" doctrine, which permits officers to seize evidence without a warrant if the evidence is clearly visible during legal observation. Since the trash was lawfully obtained by virtue of abandonment and the subsequent search was supported by probable cause documented in the warrant, the evidence obtained from the home is admissible.

Furthermore, the doctrines of open fields or border searches are not directly applicable here because the trash was collected from a public curb, a location considered outside the immediate curtilage of the home, and not a border area. Thus, there are no grounds to justify the search based on these doctrines. The legality of the trash collection and the subsequent search of the residence uphold Fourth Amendment rights because the initial collection was justified under abandonment, and the warrant was based on probable cause supported by the evidence obtained from the trash.

In conclusion, Officer Jones’s actions are consistent with Constitutional safeguards as outlined by the Fourth Amendment. The collection of garbage from the curb was justified under the abandonment doctrine, and the subsequent search was supported by probable cause established through the trash evidence, making the search and arrest constitutional under existing case law and legal principles.

References

• California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988).
• Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014).
• Hibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 547 U.S. 403 (2006).
• Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970).
• United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).
• Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989).
• U.S. Const. amend. IV.
• Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (2018).
• Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
• Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 382 U.S. 486 (2017).