Due Week 6 And Worth 100 Points Officer Jones Asked T 179666
Due Week 6 And Worth 100 Pointsofficer Jones Asked The Neighborhoods
Due Week 6 and worth 100 points 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 (1) page paper in which you: 1. Identify the constitutional amendment that would govern Officer Jones’ actions. 2. Analyze the validity and constitutionality of officer’s Jones’ actions. 3. Discuss if Officer Jones’ actions were justified under the doctrines of plain view, abandonment, open fields, or border searches. 4. Use at least two (2) quality references. Note: Wikipedia and other Websites do not qualify as academic resources. Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements: · Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions. · Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length. The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are: · Research and analyze procedures governing the process of arrest through trial. · Critically debate the Constitutional safeguards of key Amendments with specific attention to the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. · Describe the difference between searchers, warrantless searches, and stops. · Write clearly and concisely about the criminal procedure using proper writing mechanics.
Paper For Above instruction
The actions of Officer Jones are primarily governed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. This constitutional safeguard mandates that government authorities, including law enforcement officers, must generally obtain a warrant based on probable cause before conducting searches of an individual’s property, such as private homes and personal belongings. In the case at hand, Officer Jones’s conduct raises questions about the legality of searching through the defendant’s garbage without a warrant, as well as the subsequent use of that information to obtain an arrest warrant.
The validity and constitutionality of Officer Jones’s actions depend heavily on the legal doctrines surrounding searches and privacy expectations. Traditionally, the Supreme Court has held that searches conducted without a warrant are presumed unreasonable unless they fall within specific exceptions. One key doctrine relevant here is the concept of abandonment; if an individual voluntarily abandons property or items in a public place, they generally lose any reasonable expectation of privacy in those items. The trash collector’s act of placing the defendant’s garbage in bags and leaving them curbside, in compliance with instructions, indicates a possible abandonment status, permitting law enforcement to search these items without violating Fourth Amendment protections.
Furthermore, the doctrine of the plain view exception may justify some searches if law enforcement officers are lawfully present and immediately discover incriminating objects. However, in this situation, Officer Jones’s initial step of examining the garbage involves searching in a location not generally protected by Fourth Amendment rights once abandoned, aligning with the abandonment principle. The act of recapping the findings in an affidavit and obtaining a search warrant based on information from the trash is consistent with legal procedures that respect constitutional rights, provided the initial collection was legal.
It is also pertinent to analyze whether the officer’s actions could be justified under the doctrine of abandonment. Courts have consistently upheld searches of trash left in public view, emphasizing that individuals assume they relinquish privacy rights when disposal occurs in public spaces. For instance, in California v. Greenwood (1988), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that trash left on the curb is accessible to the public and can be searched without a warrant. Conversely, the open fields doctrine, established in Hester v. United States (1924), permits law enforcement to search open land beyond the curtilage without a warrant, but this is less applicable here because the focus is on garbage collection rather than open fields.
In conclusion, Officer Jones’s actions appear to be justified under the abandonment doctrine, which permits searches of garbage left in public spaces. His subsequent use of this information to obtain a warrant and conduct a search of the defendant’s residence aligns with constitutional protections if the initial search was lawful and the information obtained was sufficient to establish probable cause. Overall, the analysis underscores the importance of respecting Fourth Amendment rights while recognizing the legal precedents that allow for certain warrantless searches under specific circumstances.
References
California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988).
Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924).
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978).
United States v. Davis, 726 F.3d 386 (4th Cir. 2013).
United States v. Garcia, 497 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2007).
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013).
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984).
United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974).