Legal Standards for a Pat-Down
The police have the mandate to stop, search, and question individuals in situations they consider suspect. Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 confers on me powers to conduct a search and seizure on individuals in situations considered irregular. I was wise to act on the slightest suspicion having been briefed about the recent burglaries across the street. It was 3 am when I spotted Jones looking agitated and nervous, pacing back and forth in front of a jewelry store prone to theft. I was therefore justified to conduct a pat on him given the situation following the policing instinct and the need to be thorough.
Justification for Searching Inside Jones’ Pocket
Wortley and Owusu-Bempah (2011) assert that police intend on performing search and seizure on residents should be in full uniform and with a warrant card. However, police in plainclothes and without a warrant card can still conduct a search and seizure on persons they perceive as having committed or intent on committing a crime. Situations that warrant for a stop and search dictate for the validation of reasonable grounds that the subject is or may be carrying illegal drugs, stolen property, weapons, or any object that could enable crime (Lennon and Murray, 2016). Searches in the United States are supported under S1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and S23 of Misuse of Drugs Act 1973.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Stop and search is symbolic of policing and therefore essential, as it serves as a tool employed to protect citizens from harm. Jones's agitation that morning was a probable cause and having determined that he was unarmed, I was therefore justified to search inside his pockets to further my suspicions.
The Admission of the Cocaine into Evidence against Jones’
The judge will not admit the cocaine into evidence against Jones for intent to distribute given its meager quantity. However, the judge might consider a petition to charge Jones with possession of cocaine for personal use. Also, the judge will need to hear my testimony because I was the arresting officer and will want to confirm that Jones had cocaine in his pocket and why I thought he intended to distribute.
Evidence to Support the Charge of Intention to Distribute
The elements for the crime of possession of drugs with intent to distribute must be proved to secure a conviction. The judge in this case has two issues to determine, Jones’ possession of Cocaine and the intent to distribute (Lennon, 2015). It is clear for the first part that Jones had Cocaine, However, it cannot be verified that Jones intended to distribute the drug or kept it for personal use. The law is clear about the amount of drug in question to secure a conviction for intent to distribute. The amount in Jones’ pocket was not sufficient and there is no pattern or evidence to confirm that Jones engages in drug trafficking. Notwithstanding, Jones is culpable for a crime of possession and the prosecutor should refile the case with revised charges to avoid getting the case thrown out for faulty charges.
Probable Cause for the Arrest of Jones for Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Distribute
I had a probable cause to arrest Jones for possession of cocaine but faulted in assuming that he intended to distribute it. The cocaine in Jones's pocket was sufficient evidence for drug possession. However, the cocaine had to be in large quantity for me to charge him to distribute.
Probable Cause for the Arrest of Jones for Burglary
Jones had a case to answer regarding the damages that were evident in the store because he was found at the place of crime looking disoriented. Also, the fact that he was using or dealing in cocaine impugns his credibility as a citizen with questionable character.
The Constitutionalism of Jones Arrest
The search on Jones was constitutional and legal given that the suspicion was confirmed having found Cocaine in Jones’ pocket. Therefore, the charges should not be dismissed, as Jones’ case lacks substance.
The Case against Attempted Burglary
Sam is right to believe that the attempted burglary charge against Jones is unfounded because no material evidence exists to support the claim. Jones was not found with any weapon or tool that could enable burglary, nor was he in possession of the stolen property. The charge should, therefore, be dropped.
References
Lennon, G. (2015). Precautionary tales: Suspicionless counter-terrorism stop and search. Criminology & Criminal Justice , 15 (1), 44-62. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1748895813509637.
Lennon, G., & Murray, K. (2018). Under-regulated and unaccountable? Explaining variation in stop and search rates in Scotland, England, and Wales. Policing and Society , 28 (2), 157-174.Lennon, G., 2015. Precautionary tales: Suspicionless counter-terrorism stop and search. Criminology & Criminal Justice , 15 (1), pp.44-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2016.1163359 .
Wortley, S., & Owusu-Bempah, A. (2011). The usual suspects: Police stop and search practices in Canada. Policing and Society , 21 (4), 395-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2011.610198 .
