Arrests hinge upon the Fourth Amendment requirements. However, common law helps the courts in upholding police rights of taking a person into custody even in incidences where a warrant is absent. The police need only to have a probable cause for their actions. Generally, making an arrest does not require the establishment of guilt beyond doubt. Instead, suspicion based on reasonable grounds is sufficient for an officer to arrest as presented in the State v. Bellows , 72 Wn.2d 264, 266, 432 P.2d 654 (1967). As in the case of officer Rodriguez, he had probable cause of concern to make an arrest (Friedman & Hayden, 2017 ) . The behavior portrayed by Elliot Reynolds was suspicious enough, a fact that would pass in a court of law as enough reason for the arrest. Officers are responsible for keeping law and order in the society, hence the call is that they are thorough in doing their jobs.
Probable Cause
Probable cause amounts to the presentation of reasonable knowledge that leads one to a logical conclusion or caution against the suspect leading them to conclude of the guilt of the person in question. The fourth amendment leaves a loophole such that, information does not have to be conclusive or absolute. As such, the police are not under any obligation to be entirely sure of an incidence before making an arrest. Preferably, the presence of fair probability is enough to give them a chance to make an arrest. The probable cause was present in the Garcia v. County of Merced, 639 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2011). According to legal standards, policing individuals are sane people with the mental capability of discerning wrong from right ( Feria, 2008) . As such, it is the belief that in the line of duty, their training and educational programs allow them to perceive and recognize incidences that threaten the peace of the society, features that give them probable cause to act.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Prohibition of Pretext Stops/Arrests
The United States Supreme Court may assert the subjective option for police officers to make an arrest as passed by the Washington Supreme Court ruling, State v. Ladson , 138 Wn.2d 343, 979 P.2d 833 (1999). According to the Washington Supreme Court, pretextual stops involving traffic officers are unjustified by the constitution due to the dilemma of its real intent. Officer Rodriguez could have stopped Elton on the grounds of a speculative investigation into criminal activity or for another reason unknown to the system. Although the action is lawful, it lacks a real reason. Pretext as such presents a scenario of triumphing expediency at the cost of reason (Friedman & Percival, 2017 ) . While the results portray a different opinion, the process was without reason, hence one is left to speculate on the validity of the action. According to Article I, section 7, it is forbidden to use the pretext in justifying a warrantless search. To this end, the actions by Officer Rodriguez amount to a violation of the law.
Initially, Ladson, 138 Wn.2d at 838-43 presented litigations that governed the actions by police on the road. The Ladson report requires different information, including the duties assigned to the officer on a particular day as presented in the State v. Montes-Malindas . Furthermore, it governs incidences where the defendant was recognized by the officer before the stop occurred. However, new pretext stops cases have brought to light new perspectives, including Ladson not applying to searches that are supported by valid warrants ( Feria, 2008) . As such, the search by officer Rodriquez was unwarranted hence exposing it to Ladson rulings.
Opinion on Officer Rodriquez Actions
Officer Rodriquez had no legal provision that allowed him to search the suspect’s vehicle. While the suspect was wrong to get out of the vehicle, an arrest was within the officer’s provision due to the suspect getting out of the car. Any police officer would have reacted the same way Officer Rodriguez did. As per the court ruling in State v. Montes Malindas , approaching the suspect’s car with caution presents the opinion that the officer had other intentions that were not related to a traffic rule violation. However, the search process violated the suspect’s privacy clause as per the general rule concerning searches. As in the ruling of United States v. O'Connor , probable cause hinges upon the guilt of one to be arrested. However, probable search requires the item to be related to the assumed crime (Friedman & Hayden, 2017 ) . However, no offense had been done by Elton; instead, the police officer was looking for a probable reason to incriminate the detainee.
Conclusion
The Fourteenth Amendment requires law enforcement officers to respect the rights and privacy ascriptions of those they intend to apprehend. Furthermore, everyone has their rights, and it is up to the police officers and the court of law to uphold the rights. While officer Rodriguez had probable cause to suspect and apprehend Elton, the search warrant did not follow the legal procedure. It must also be noted that no crime had been committed hence whichever weapon or convincing evidence by the officer was based on actions done by himself based on his personal opinion. Traffic stops have to abide by the rule of law, and as such, a court should be able to legally discern the position taken by the police officer and the effect it may have on the constitution.
References
Feria, T. M. (2008). The landmark rulings of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the rights of the child: Protecting the most vulnerable at the edge . Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Friedman, L. M., & Hayden, G. M. (2017). American law: An introduction . Oxford University Press.
Friedman, L. M., & Percival, R. V. (2017). The Roots of Justice: Crime and Punishment in Alameda County, California, 1870-1910 . UNC Press Books.
