Case 1
The US constitution requires courts to grant defendant motion to suppress following various exceptions under the arrest warrant. In situations where the courts are to make a ruling motion on suppress evidence; juries consider the case under the plain view exception of a warrant arrest (Head, 2010). In order to decide whether the rocks of cocaine were lawfully arrested, the situation has to be analyzed based on the plain view exception of an arrest warrant. This requirement justifies the court to seize evidence if the officer has a prior justification of the intrusion, immediately recognizes the objects as evidence of wrongdoing, or he comes across the evidence advertently. The case involving the two police officers and the passenger does not satisfy such requirements.
The case involving two police officers and passenger in possession of rocks of crack cocaine should be granted motion to suppress the seized evidence because the police officers violated the requirements for plain view arrest. Though the court justifies that the police officers were in public place, they did not identify the object before the intrusion. In effect, they violated the aspect of plain view that requires police officers to engage invasion in circumstances where they can identify the object before engaging in search. The two police officers noticed a car in a parking and observed a lady leaning on the window. They could find that the lady gave an object to the passenger, but they were unable to determine if it is applicable in committing a crime before engaging in search. This information indicates that the police officers violated the rights to privacy for the passenger justifying the need for the trial court to grant passenger’s motion to suppress the seized evidence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The incidence lies under the category of lawful arrest because the passenger was found in possession of hard drugs. The ownership of controlled substance is categorized as an incidence that could result in the crime, thus compelling the police officers to present the case before the court. However, plain view exception of arrest warrant requires the police officer to immediately recognize the objects as evidence of wrongdoing without engaging in intentional or planned search (Head, 2010). If law enforcers assume the suspect and engage in deep search to identify evidence, the suspect should be given the motion to suppress evidence. The case involving the two police officers and a passenger in possession of cracks of rock cocaine is unlawful because the law enforcers violated the unintentional exception of an arrest warrant. The search was intentional because it was based on assumptions and interfered with the rights of privacy for the passenger.
The police officers violated the requirement for an inadvertent need for plain view by seizing evidence they could not identify without interfering with the passenger’s privacy. For instance, it took time for the police officers to find and identify the possession of cocaine as evidence of wrongdoing. When the security enforcements observed the passenger, they assumed that he had firearms and ordered the car to stop. This information indicates that their search was primary looking for weapons which they did not find in possession of the suspect. Moreover, some of the cracks of cocaine were obtained from a plastic bag and the other wrapped with clothes. The evidence was received after investigating the passenger’s bulge of pockets showing that the police officers did not have a specific weapon or object that they were searching. The fourth amendment requires evidence to be seized in circumstances where there is no independent search that resulted in the invasion of the seized evidence. However, the police officers suspected the passengers of owning firearms and later observed cocaine. Based on the requirement of the fourth amendment regarding the expectation of privacy, it is evident that the evidence the court should grant the passenger motion to suppress the evidence. The incidence violated all the requirements of the plain view expectation of arrest warrant though the police officers were in public place.
Case 2
Based on the case for a routine patrol, the passenger motion to suppress the substance control evidence should not be granted. The exception for arrest warrant requires an action to be observed unlawful in situations where the police officer is in public place (Imwinkelried et al., 2011). The officer arrested the controlled substances because he stopped at the parking to identify the reason as to why the people stopped in the parking. Previously, the officer had received calls from the bar regarding the incidences of crime experienced in the region. Crimes that risked the safety of people such as murder and public intoxication occurred in that area, making it a crime scene. Based on this information, the police officer had the right to be in this public viewpoint as security personnel. Additionally, the search is in line with the law requirement because it is based on criminal activities that have been witnessed in the region. This perception disqualifies the search and seizing of the evidence to be categorized as an invasion.
Seizing the substance as evidence is justifiable under the plain view exception of the arrest warrant because the control substance and bullet were left in the open place, and the police officer could observe these objects as tools for wrongdoing. The fumbling behavior of the people in the car triggered the police officer’s decision to stop and frisk the instruments they possessed. According to the routine case, when the police officers pulled behind the vehicle and illuminated the car with a spotlight, he could observe the passenger fumbling with something in the floorboard. As a result, the frisking of the passenger could not be categorized as intrusion or violation of rights to privacy of the individual. The frisking was triggered by the presence of a bullet on the top of the console car. As a result, the intention for frisking was to check if the passengers owned guns. The control substances were placed in public view such that the officer identified something usual in the floorboard. As a result, the materials were obtained from the floorboard, indicating that the search did not exceed the suspected area.
Granting the passenger the motion to suppress the control substances used as evidence would be acting against the requirement for seizing evidence in the United States. The case is similar to that presented in the trial court, and the suspect granted the motion to suppress controlled substance. The case involved narcotics investigator and County Sherrif’s Department informed by the public of drug trafficking taking place in the region. While in the parking lot, they observed a person giving a white carton later kept on the dashboard. The officers found controlled substances specifically cocaine, and the trial court erred in granting the suspect motion to suppress the controlled substance (“FindLaw's Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama case and opinions” nd). The United States Supreme court criticized this decision quoting the incidences of plain view and officers’ justification for being in a public place. Based on this evidence, the police officer was in routine duty, and the controlled substances in the floorboard were in public place. Similarly, this investigation justifies the decision for the trial court to deny the passenger the motion to suppress the controlled substance.
Cases that require an arrest warrant excludes a situation where the police officer is in a position to identify the object as a tool for wrongdoing immediately, and it should occur as an advertent (Dickey, 2013). The information presented under the control substance case justifies this exception, thus making lawful to arrest and seize the controlled substance. The law enforcement officer observed the bullet on top of the car and realized the need for conduct search to check if the passengers had firearms. Though he failed to find the guns, he accidentally noticed the controlled substance on the floorboard. As a result, seizing the controlled substance was not intentional but accidental incidence.
References
Dickey, S. L. (2013). The Anomaly of Passenger Standing to Suppress All Evidence Derived from Illegal Vehicle Seizures under the Exclusionary Rule: Why the Conventional Wisdom of the Lower Courts Is Wrong. Miss. LJ, 82, 183.
FindLaw's Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/al-court-of-criminal-appeals/1117062.html
Head, B. (2010). Evidence-based policy: principles and requirements. Strengthening evidence-based policy in the Australian Federation, 1(1), 13-26.
Imwinkelried, E. J., Giannelli, P. C., Gilligan, F. A., Lederer, F. I., & Richter, L. (2011). Courtroom Criminal Evidence. LexisNexis.
