Week 1 Project Case Analysis: Two Officers Were Patrolling

Week 1 Project Case Analysistwo Officers Were Patrolling A High Crime

Week 1 Project: Case Analysis Two officers were patrolling a high-crime area of a town known for its high incidence of drug dealing. They noticed a man standing by a car speaking to the driver and passenger. He handed them an object and walked away. According to the officers, when the driver and his passenger spotted the police, they got out of the car quickly and began walking away while glancing back at the officers nervously. The officers stopped the two men and asked them a few questions. During questioning, the officers detected what they believed was the smell of marijuana on the men. The officers then performed a pat-down search and one of them noticed a bulge in the pocket of the driver's jacket. The bulge felt like a bag of pills, so the officer reached into the man's jacket and pulled out what was actually a bag of marijuana. The officers arrested the driver and searched the car. They found more marijuana under both seats of the car. They then arrested the passenger. Was the stop of the two men by the officers legal with reference to the case of Illinois v. Gates (1983)? Why? Was the search of the two men legal with reference to the case Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)? Why? Was the seizure of the marijuana from the driver a violation of the protection guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment? Why? Was the officers' search of the car legal? Why? Was the arrest of the passenger legal? Why?

Paper For Above instruction

The case involving the police officers’ stop and subsequent searches of two men in a high-crime area raises significant questions related to constitutional protections under the Fourth Amendment, particularly concerning reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and search and seizure practices. This analysis evaluates whether the officers' actions were legally justified based on relevant case law, specifically Illinois v. Gates (1983) and Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993), as well as the legality of the seizure of marijuana and the arrest of the passenger.

Legal Justification for the Stop of the Men

The initial stop of the two men by police officers was predicated on their suspicious behavior and the appearance of nervousness. According to Illinois v. Gates (1983), probable cause for a search or arrest is based on "the totality of the circumstances" rather than a single factor. The officers observed the men’s nervous behavior, which can be indicative of guilt but is not, on its own, enough to establish probable cause. The fact that the men quickly exited the vehicle and looked back nervously may have contributed to reasonable suspicion, which is necessary to justify a stop under the Fourth Amendment. Courts have held that nervousness and flight are common indicators of potential criminal activity that can justify an investigatory stop (Terry v. Ohio, 1968). Therefore, under Illinois v. Gates, which modernized probable cause standards, the officers’ stop could be justified if the total circumstances equaled reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause. Given their observations, the stop appears legally justified under existing jurisprudence.

Legality of the Search of the Men Under Minnesota v. Dickerson

The search of the men's person involved a pat-down based on the officers' belief that the men were involved in criminal activity, primarily driven by the smell of marijuana and the bulge felt in the jacket pocket. Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) clarified the scope of "stop and frisk" searches, emphasizing that police must adhere to the principles of reasonableness and cannot conduct a "plain view" search or seize items not immediately apparent as contraband without further justification. In this case, when the officer felt a bulge that resembled pills, but then reached into the pocket and found marijuana, the admissibility hinges on whether the search was a "plain feel" or an invasive search. The Court in Dickerson ruled that if contraband is immediately apparent through the sense of touch during a lawful pat-down, seizure is justified; if not, further search requires probable cause. Since the officer initially believed the bulge contained pills and then felt it was marijuana, which later was confirmed, this aligns with the "plain feel" doctrine. Therefore, the search was likely legal because it was conducted based on lawful suspicion and the officer's perception of contraband through the sense of touch.

Legality of the Seizure of Marijuana and Its Fourth Amendment Implications

The seizure of marijuana from the driver’s pocket raises questions about whether the officers had probable cause or whether the search exceeded constitutional limits. Under the Fourth Amendment, warrantless searches and seizures are permissible if supported by probable cause or exigent circumstances. In the case of Minnesota v. Dickerson, the Court emphasized that contraband can be seized during a lawful frisk if its incriminating nature is immediately apparent. Here, the officer’s perception of the bulge and subsequent feeling of marijuana fit within this doctrine. Therefore, the seizure was consistent with constitutional protections, provided the officers’ perception was reasonable and based on valid suspicion. However, if the officers lacked sufficient suspicion or if the initial stop was unlawful, the seizure could be challenged as a violation of Fourth Amendment rights.

Legality of the Search of the Car and the Passenger’s Arrest

The search of the vehicle was conducted after the driver was arrested and evidence of marijuana was found. Under the automobile exception, once there is probable cause to believe a vehicle contains contraband, officers are permitted to search it without a warrant (California v. Acevedo, 1991). Given the evident smell of marijuana and the discovery of the initial bag, the search of the car likely had a legal basis. As for the passenger’s arrest, courts generally recognize that passengers can be lawfully arrested if officers have probable cause to believe they are involved in criminal activity, especially if evidence links them to the crime scene or contraband. Since the officers arrested the passenger after discovering the marijuana in the vehicle, and considering the suspicion based on their behavior and the evidence found, the arrest appears lawful under the probable cause standard.

Conclusion

In summary, based on the described circumstances and pertinent case law, the officers’ stop and search actions can be justified under the Fourth Amendment, provided their suspicion was reasonable and based on the totality of facts. The initial stop likely met the standard of reasonable suspicion, and the search of the individuals and vehicle was supported by the ongoing justification of probable cause derived from the perceptions of smell and physical evidence. The seizure of marijuana was consistent with constitutional protections, and the arrests of both the driver and passenger appear legally justified. These actions exemplify the importance of the reasonableness standard in police searches and seizures and highlight the constitutional boundaries officers must operate within during law enforcement activities.

References

• California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991).
• Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
• Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993).
• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
• United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002).
• Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996).
• Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009).
• Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989).
• Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).
• Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).