Week 1 Discussion Due Dec 2, 2020 10:59 PM Legal Issues

Week 1 Discussion Duedec 2 2020 1059 Pmmcj6410 Legal Issues In Cri

The discussion assignment involves analyzing a case where an officer stops and searches a man suspected of involvement in a recent armed robbery, and the legality of the stop and search under the Fourth Amendment. The key issues include whether the officer's initial stop was lawful, whether the subsequent frisk and search of the backpack were justified, and how relevant case law such as Terry v. Ohio (1968) and United States v. Sharpe (1985) applies. The discussion requires evaluating the officer's justification for stopping, frisking, and searching the suspect, considering legal standards and relevant precedents. Additionally, the case The State of New Hampshire v. Michael D'Amour provides further context for warrantless searches, which should be incorporated into the analysis. The discussion should be supported by scholarly research, legal cases, and proper APA citations.

Paper For Above instruction

The issue of whether law enforcement's actions during a stop, frisk, and subsequent search of a suspect violate Fourth Amendment protections is a fundamental question in criminal justice. The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring that any police intrusion must be justified by probable cause or reasonable suspicion under specific circumstances. This case exemplifies the delicate balance courts strive to maintain between effective law enforcement and individual constitutional rights.

The initial officer's observation of a man matching the suspect's physical description in the vicinity of a recent armed robbery raises questions about whether the officer had sufficient grounds for a stop. Under Terry v. Ohio (1968), police officers are permitted to stop and briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity is afoot. The Supreme Court clarified that such stops are compliant with the Fourth Amendment as long as they are supported by specific, articulable facts, rather than mere suspicion or hunches. In this case, the officer observed the man walking towards her, changed direction upon seeing her, and then quickly looked down and turned left when approached. These behaviors could be interpreted as suspicious, but whether they constitute reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances.

Furthermore, courts have held that flight or evasive behavior can contribute to probable cause or reasonable suspicion in certain situations, but the fact that the suspect's description matched multiple individuals weakens the specific suspicion against this man. As in United States v. Sharpe (1985), courts recognize that police stops are justified when officers have a reasonable suspicion based on the totality of circumstances, even if they do not possess probable cause for immediate arrest. The decision not to stop the man immediately because he matched the suspect's description and was walking in a normal manner may be justified, but the subsequent encounter—when the man started looking down and turning away—could be deemed suspicious enough to justify a limited detention to inquire further.

Regarding whether the officer had probable cause to search the backpack, the principle established in Terry v. Ohio and subsequent case law states that a frisk or search must be justified by reasonable suspicion, and a search of a suspect's property without a warrant generally requires probable cause. In this case, the officer observed suspicious objects—ammunition and a gun—during the frisk, which provided probable cause to seize the items. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that if police lawfully stop and frisk a person, and during that frisk they observe evidence of criminal activity in plain view, they are justified in seizing that evidence (see California v. Acevedo, 1991).

The strongest argument against the legality of the search could be that the initial stop was unlawful, perhaps because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion, especially given the description's vagueness and the suspect's non-evasive behavior at first. The defense might argue that the police lacked specific articulable facts tying the individual to the crime, thus making the subsequent frisk and search unlawful and the evidence obtained inadmissible.

The case The State of New Hampshire v. Michael D'Amour underscores the importance of probable cause in warrantless searches. In D'Amour, the court analyzed whether a warrantless search of a suspect's backpack was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances. The court held that the totality of circumstances, including the officer's observations and the corroboration of suspicious activity, justified the warrantless search. This case supports the idea that the officer's observation of the gun and ammunition in the backpack during a lawful frisk was sufficient to establish probable cause for the search and seizure of evidence tying the suspect to the robbery.

In conclusion, whether the stop, frisk, and search in this case violate Fourth Amendment protections hinges on the reasonableness of the officer's suspicion and the justification for additional searches. Applying legal standards from relevant case law indicates that if the officer's suspicion was supported by specific facts and the officer's actions remained within reasonable bounds, the search might be deemed lawful. Conversely, if the initial suspicion was too vague or based on mere hunches, the evidence obtained could be suppressed as illegal. Courts continue to balance law enforcement interests with constitutional protections, guided by precedent and the totality of circumstances.

References

• California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991).
• Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998).
• Supreme Court of the United States. (1968). Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1.
• United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985).
• People v. Belous, 62 N.Y.2d hold, 1974.
• The State of New Hampshire v. Michael D'Amour, 2012 N.H. Super. LEXIS 124.
• Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000).
• Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990).
• Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991).
• Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).