In my opinion, Officer Taylor contemplated on the persons they intend to prevent from operating in the streets. The aspiration to ensure a safe street for herself and the town residents informed her decision to stop the car. Regarding the recent roadside killing of the police officer, she stopped the car to determine the driver's involvement in the recent roadside killing of the police officer. Accordingly, contemplating on the criminals and their operations in the street influences the decision of Officer Taylor to stop the female driver during her routine nighttime shift or patrol. According to Casenote Legal Briefs (2017), State v. Stuart, W. Va., 452 S.E.2d 886 (1994), permits police officers to stop an automobile or vehicle and investigate if the officers possess an articulated suspicion of the driver based on an offence the driver committed or the crime the person may commit in future. According to the description of the car that involved in the recent roadside assassination of a police officer, Officer Taylor suspected the car and the driver who bears the features of the shooter or killer. Similar to the assassin's physical attributes, the female driver had a nose ring, tattoos, and extended braids. Additionally, Officer Taylor stop the car because of broken taillight covered with colored tape. Based on the similar characteristics of the shooter and the condition of the car, Officer Taylor had the reasonable suspicion to the initiate the initial stoppage of the car to ascertain whether the description of the car and the driver match the automobile that involved in the recent roadside killing of the police officer. State v. Julius, 185 W. Va. 422, 408 S.E.2d 1 (1991), permit police officers to stop a car for a legitimate interest of the state. The lawful stoppage of a car initiates probable cause that requires the police officer to search the automobile to affirm whether the car carries contraband, weapons, or contain evidence of crime commission (Casenote Legal Briefs, 2017). Exigent circumstances permit police officers to conduct a warrantless search of a property. Accordingly, the roadside killing of the police officer acts as the legitimate state interest. The car's condition with the broken taillight covered with colored tape inspired officer Taylor to stop the car to investigate whether the car involved in the recent roadside killing of the police officer. Her suspicion on the car and the driver initiated the car's warrantless search to confirm whether the car carries the weapon used in the roadside, killing the police officer. Accordingly, Officer Taylor conducted a legal"pat-dow" of the driver. State v. Julius, 185 W. Va. 422, 408 S.E.2d 1 (1991), holds that the presence of exigent circumstances requires police officers to act swiftly to curb the imminent threat to life and severe damage to property or evidence. Additionally, the presence of exigent circumstances requires police officers to engage in swift action when they anticipate the imminent escape of the offender or suspect (Casenote Legal Briefs, 2017). After conducting the legal"pat-dow" of the driver, the police officer Taylor requested the driver to produce her driving license and registration. As opposed to providing the verification documents, the driver disobeyed the request and accelerated the vehicle swiftly. Accordingly, officer Taylor observed the existence of exigent circumstances when the driver attempted to evade arrest. Consequently, Officer Taylor pursued the vehicle because she anticipated the imminent escape of the driver. The police officer Taylor pursued the car because the driver violated traffic regulations by accelerating the car, causing the accident. Initially, the police officer Taylor did not observe the presence of a gun in the car. However, after the accident, the police officer noticed the open glove compartment and observed the gun beneath documents. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), require police officers to uphold plain view seizure based on the conditions that the item must exist in the plain view of the police officer, the police officer must discover the evidence lawfully, and ensure apparent incrimination of the evidence (Rawls, 2016). Accordingly, the gun existed in a plain view that permits seizure based on the plain view doctrine. State vs. Malady, 672 S.W.2d 171 173 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984) requires police officers to search with the consent of the defendant (Casenote Legal Briefs, 2017). Consequently, officer Tayler obtained the gun illegally because the unconscious driver did not consent retrieval of the gun from her car. Possession of illegal substances results in the violation of laws. When a police officer discovers an illegal product from an offender, the criminal faces court charges that may result in jail sentences based on concrete evidence. State v. Eady, 733 A 2d 112 (C 1999), permits incrimination of the evidence observed when rescuing the driver during the accident (Casenote Legal Briefs, 2017). According to the State v. Venzen, 649 S.E.2d 851, 853-54 (Ga. App. 2007), the exigent circumstances occurred for officer Tylor to seize the illegal product without a search warrant because the officer observed the marijuana baggie from the driver's purse. The presence of marijuana baggie in the driver's purse permits the officer Taylor to incriminate the evidence obtained when searching for the driver's identification documents. The recovery of marijuana baggies from the driver's purse result in the admissibility of possessing illegal products. Consequently, the obtained marijuana baggies will act as relevant evidence against the driver in the court of law.
References
Casenote Legal Briefs. (2017). Casenote legal briefs for criminal procedure keyed to Dressler and Thomas . Wolters Kluwer Law & Bus.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Rawls, T. O. M. (2016). PLAIN VIEW . Lulu Com.
