The Officer And The Drug Arrest Due Week 2 And Worth 100 ✓ Solved

The Officer And The Drug Arrest Due Week 2 And Worth 100

Case Study 1: The Officer and the Drug Arrest Due Week 2 and worth 100 points. Officer Williams is an officer with the Richmond police department, with five years of service. He received information from an anonymous caller that a citizen living in the local housing project was selling drugs. Based on this information, Officer Williams approached and stopped the citizen as he was leaving his apartment. During the search, drugs were found on the citizen.

Write a 1- to 2-page paper addressing the following: Identify the constitutional amendment governing Officer Williams' actions; discuss whether you support his actions and justify your stance with relevant case law and Supreme Court precedents; analyze the validity and constitutionality of Officer Williams' actions; evaluate whether his actions were justified through any of the three established methods of establishing probable cause, providing a rationale for your response. Use at least two credible references, excluding Wikipedia and similar sites. Follow the Strayer Writing Standards, including typed, double-spaced text, Times New Roman font size 12, with one-inch margins. Include a cover page with the assignment title, your name, the professor's name, the course title, and date. The cover and reference pages do not count toward the page requirement.

Paper For Above Instructions

The case of Officer Williams’ action involves fundamental constitutional considerations that are essential to understanding lawful police conduct during arrests and searches. Analyzing these actions requires a thorough examination of the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the legal standards established by case law and Supreme Court precedent.

Constitutional Amendment Governing Officer Williams’ Actions

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution strictly governs police conduct related to searches and seizures. It states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” This constitutional provision mandates that any search or arrest initiated by police must be reasonable, typically requiring probable cause and, in many cases, a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate (U.S. Constitution, amend. IV).

Support for Officer Williams’ Actions

In my opinion, Officer Williams’ actions can be justified under the doctrine of probable cause, especially given the anonymous tip and the circumstances of the stop. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld that citizens' tips can provide reasonable suspicion or probable cause if corroborated with observable facts (Illinois v. Gates, 1983). The anonymous tip concerning drug activity, coupled with Officer Williams’ direct observation of the citizen leaving his residence, supports the legality of his stop and subsequent search.

Case law, such as Terry v. Ohio (1968), establishes that police officers may conduct brief stops and searches when they have reasonable suspicion, which is a lower standard than probable cause but sufficient for initiating a temporary detention (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1). In this case, the officer’s suspicion was based on specific, articulable facts derived from the anonymous tip and his observation of the suspect’s behavior, meeting the reasonable suspicion threshold.

Analysis of the Validity and Constitutionality

The constitutionality of Officer Williams’ actions hinges on the standards of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Initially, the anonymous tip alone did not satisfy the probable cause requirement; however, when corroborated by Officer Williams’ direct observation, the totality of the circumstances supports a legal stop. This aligns with the “totality of the circumstances” test established by the Supreme Court, which examines all facts to determine if police conduct was reasonable (Michigan v. Tucker, 1974).

Furthermore, the search and seizure of drugs were justified due to the established probable cause, affirming their constitutionality. The drug’s discovery was based on information that, when combined with Officer Williams’ observations, created a reasonable basis to believe that the suspect was involved in illegal activity.

Methods to Establish Probable Cause

Probable cause can be established through three main ways: a warrant issued upon probable cause, exigent circumstances, and the perception of the officer at the scene. In this case, Officer Williams likely relied on the second or third method. Given that he encountered the suspect in a public place and observed suspicious activity—leaving a residence where drugs were believed to be sold—the arrest can be justified under the exigent circumstances doctrine or as a lawful stop based on reasonable suspicion, which can justify the search without a warrant.

The exigent circumstances doctrine allows police to act swiftly when immediate action is necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence or harm, which could apply here considering the illicit drug activity. Alternatively, probable cause derived from the combination of the anonymous tip and Officer Williams’ direct observations suffices for a lawful arrest and search under the Fourth Amendment.

Conclusion

Overall, Officer Williams’ actions can be justified under the Fourth Amendment, supported by case law such as Terry v. Ohio and Illinois v. Gates. His conduct aligns with established legal standards for reasonable suspicion and probable cause, showing that the search and seizure were lawful and constitutional. Proper adherence to these legal principles safeguards individual rights while enabling law enforcement to maintain public safety effectively.

References

• Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
• Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433 (1974).
• U.S. Constitution, amend. IV.
• LaFave, W. R. (2015). Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment. West Academic Publishing.
• Kerr, O. (2012). The Fourth Amendment and the Philosophy of Privacy. Harvard Law Review, 125(7), 1760-1792.
• Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).
• Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493 (1958).
• Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018).
• Schmalleger, F. (2018). Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the 21st Century. Pearson.