The motion to suppress seized evidence or controlled substance is seen in both case studies. The passengers insist on the motion because they believe that they were searched illegally which discredits the evidence found during their arrest. The paper is to discuss whether both the cases were illegally searched and whether the judge should suppress evidence and controlled substance found during their arrests (Katz, 1980).
In the first case study, it is seen that there was a car found parked in a high-crime area. Inside were the driver and a passenger. Officers of the law spotted the car creating some curiosity. On observing the car, they saw a young woman leaning on the passenger side, and it seemed like the woman handed to the passenger an object that they could not recognize. As they approached, the woman began to walk away (Peebles, 1976). One of the officers then saw the passenger making some movement below the car seat which led to the officer assuming that the passenger may be armed. It led to the officer drawing his gun and asking to see their hands. The passenger complied, and on approaching the passenger, he noticed some bulging item in the pockets. On touching it, the object felt hard, and on removing it, there was a rock of cocaine. Therefore they were able also to seize another bag of cocaine in the passenger’s clothing leading to the passenger’s arrest.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
As seen above the car at first looked suspicious because it was parked in a high crime area. While observing them the fact that the woman was leaning on a car given to the passenger an object they could not identify and began to walk away as the officers approached also raised another alarm. The activities they partook seemed quite suspicious therefore it created a probable cause for the police. Firstly the fact that the car was parked at a high-crime area was suspicious for it means that they are either going to be committing the crime or become victims in the area (Shellow, 1964). The officers had a right to observe to a certain their suspicion. Exchange of the object by the woman who acted suspiciously on seeing the officers is also another factor that created a probable cause. As they approached the car, the passenger seems to be shoving downward, and the officers could only assume that the passenger was armed. Getting closer to drawing his gun and asking to see the hands the officer notices a bulging object which he assumed could be a gun. Touching and removing it, he realizes it was cocaine while more was found in the passenger’s clothing.
The passenger should not be granted the motion to suppress evidence because there was probable cause for the officer to search. Once the police notice that the passenger was shoving downward, the feared that the passenger was in possession of a firearm. The bulging item from his pocket also looked like a gun and on searching it was the illegal substance (cocaine). Therefore, the officer had the right to search for there was a probable cause which was the suspicious woman who reacted on seeing the officers, shoving downwards by the passenger and the bulging item in the pockets that looked like a gun (Tullis & Ludlow, 1975). All these factors led to the detention of the passenger and eventually arrest on finding the illegal items in possession of the passenger. The driver and woman were not detained because the drugs were not found in their possession. If the drugs were found in the car, then it would warrant the arrest of a driver, but they were found in the passenger’s clothing.
The second case is of a car that was noticed parked in a high-crime area. Two people were inside the car, and it was parked outside a bar that was known for gang activity. Officers have responded to calls in the area of murder and public intoxication. Therefore the officer decided to check on the car if they were okay and if they were from the area. On approaching behind the car with full lights on the car, he notices the passenger fumbling at the bottom of his seat (Shellow, 1964). As the officer requested for identification, he sees a bullet at the console of the car. It then gives the officer a probable cause to search the car for any weapons. The officer decides to check at the bottom of the seat where the passenger was fumbling. On frisking the car, he finds a pack of beer and moving it on the side he notices a bag with a controlled substance.
The officer at first was suspicious of the car mainly because it was parked right outside a bar that had various criminal activities taking place. Another suspicious move was when the passenger began to fumble below his seat as the police drew their lights on the car. On being asked questions on their identification, a bullet is noticed at the console. The bullet raised the alarm for it gave the officer a probable cause to search the car. It was for his good that the officer searches the car for any weapons just in case to avoid anyone from getting hurt (Peebles, 1976). On searching below the seat and finding the pack of beer the officer continued to search and found controlled substance. There is the fact that the bullet was enough probable cause to search but the controlled substance motion should be granted. The officer intended to find a gun in the car because of the bullet identified, but instead, he found other things in the car that is not illegal.
The passenger in the case above may have been guilty of other things, but the controlled substance is not the crime. Finding the bullet should be the primary question considering firearms are illegal to an authorized person. The controlled substance also was not the initial suspicion, and there was no more probable cause to search the car more once he only found the pack of beer. Any search after that was not rightfully done for the officer was now witch hunting for evidence using the wrong approach (Katz, 1980). Therefore the motion to suppress the controlled substance in the second case should be granted. The officer has to show the probable cause to search further once he noticed there was no gun under the seat it was instead a pack of beer which legal to have.
In conclusion, one could say that case study one does not deserve the motion to suppress the seized evidence for there was probable cause that led to the discovery of something illegal (Shellow, 1964). The second case study, the passenger deserves the motion of suppressing the seized control substance because it was found through a further search which was not due to a probable cause but a witch hunt.
References
Katz, L. R. (1980). Reflections on search and seizure and illegally seized evidence in Canada and the United States. Can.-USLJ , 3 , 103.
Peebles, T. H. (1976). The Uninvited Canine Nose and the Right to Privacy: Some Thoughts on Katz and Dogs. Ga. L. Rev. , 11 , 75.
Shellow, J. M. (1964). The Continuing Vitality of the Gouled Rule: The Search for and Seizure of Evidence. Marq. L. Rev. , 48 , 172.
Tullis, R., & Ludlow, L. (1975). Admissibility of Evidence Seized in Another Jurisdiction: Choice of Law and the Exclusionary Rule. USFL Rev. , 10 , 67.
