Officer Struble Routine Traffic Stop

I could be driving minding my own business and a drive by a police officer just parked somewhere and police officer spots me and pulls me over for some reason. The police officer orders me out of my vehicle. Maybe I was speeding and I did not know? Or maybe the police officer wants to search me and my car? Can the officer do that? The answer to all these questions are no, Thanks to the Fourth Amendment, The police officer has limited power to seize and search me or my car (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr). Now, the Fourth Amendment has been questioned repeatedly during the last several years, as police and higher intelligent agencies in the United States have engaged in a number of controversial activities. From the federal government collecting telephones and Internet connections to protect us, due to the War on Terror and trying to prevent the same damage that happened on 9/11. Many municipal police forces have engaged in violent use of “stop and frisk.” There have been as far as incidents were police officers were force to shoot civilians (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr).

The Supreme Court made it clear with its ruling that, police do have the authority to stop or detain an individual for a questioning for a short-term period without probable cause if he/she make have or about to commit a crime. This ruling is important because it gives police officer the authority to help protect him/herself as well as the community. It also puts steps in place to protect citizens from unreasonable search and seizure that is protected our Fourth Amendment right. In the case of Terry v. Ohio a police detective observed two men walking up and down a street several times and gazing into a store window. The officer observing conduct from the individuals that would lead him or her to suspect that a crime has already happened or about to happen is one of the necessities need to consider this as a valid stop. The officer identified himself as an officer of the law and began to inquire and request identification. The officer in this case followed the required guidelines for a valid stop. In return the Supreme Court ruled that this was a valid stop and frisk. According to United States Supreme Court TERRY v. OHIO, (1968) MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring. While I unreservedly agree with the Court 's ultimate holding in this case, I am constrained to fill in a few gaps, as I see them, in its opinion. I do this because what is said by this Court today

A detention is reasonable when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, under the totality of the circumstance, provide an objective basis for suspecting the particular person detained may be involved in criminal activity. (People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224.) As such, an investigatory stop based on mere curiosity, rumor or hunch is an unlawful seizure, even though the officer may be acting in good faith. (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629.) Nonetheless, reasonable suspicion cannot be justified after the fact by evidence of criminal activity uncovered during the course of the detention. (People v. Gale (1973) 9 Cal.3d 788.) Moreover, mere proximity cannot be enough to create reasonable suspicion because proximity

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects one’s rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also states that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. Probable cause can be defined as a person of reasonable caution who believes that a crime has been committed and the person accused has committed that crime. Modern law has afforded police officers an incentive to respect this amendment, known as the “stop and frisk” act. The Stop and Frisk law allows police officers to stop someone and do a quick search of their outer clothing for weapons: if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place and the person stopped is armed or dangerous. The reasonable

Once someone reaches a level of reasonable suspicion, police officers are allowed to stop and frisk the suspects. If they are still thought to be participating in illegal activity it becomes probable cause and then the suspect will be arrested and interrogated. Due to Miranda rights people have the opportunity to speak with an attorney before being questioned and may also have one present while being questioned.

In the first incident, Clayton Harris’s truck was pulled over by Officer Wheetley because it had an expired license plate. When Wheetley approached the vehicle the suspect

At final, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s ruling. The Court said that all claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force whether deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop or any other seizure of a citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, rather than the under a substantive due process. The court also stated that a seizure occurs when a law enforcment officer terminates a free citizen’s movement by a means interntionally applied. An officer may sieze a person in many ways including: traffic stops, investigative detentions, and arrests are all seizures under the 4th amendmet. To seize a person, an officer may yell, “stop”, handcuff, a baton, or a firearm can be used to comply the subject with officer orders.

Case Facts: Roy Caballes was stopped for speeding by an Illinois state trooper Daniel Gillette. During the traffic stop another state trooper Craig Graham of the Illinois State Police Drug Interdiction Team, overheard the stop on the radio and showed up to the scene with a narcotics detection dog. While the first trooper was writing Roy Caballes a warning ticket for speeding the second trooper walked around Roy’s car with the narcotics detection dog. The dog alerted that it had detected narcotics at the rear end of the car which subsequently led to the state troopers searching the trunk of the car. Upon searching the trunk of the car the state troopers found a large quantity of marijuana which consequently led to the arrest of Roy Caballes. The entire incident lasted no longer than 10 minutes. Roy Caballes was convicted of a narcotics offence and was sentenced to 12 years in prison and ordered to pay a $256,136 fine.

Officer had probable cause to affect a traffic stop after he observed defendant following too closely. Defendant's and passenger's behavior after stop provided reasonable suspicion to expand the detention, and a positive drug dog sniff provided basis for search of vehicle.

Petitioner’s recording posed an unreasonable risk to bystanders, passing motorist, and the police, essentially creating an inherently dangerous situation. Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle, 622 F.3d 248, 262 (3d Cir. 2010). The Third Circuit has firmly recognized that traffic stops are especially fraught with danger to police officers. Id. A traffic stop always poses danger because of its unpredictable nature, but even more so, when a potential suspect is on the loose. Petitioner was a suspect for a crime of several residential break-ins, which a reasonable office would assume is armed and dangerous; thus creating a heightened risk to the officers’ safety. Furthermore, the Petitioner was stopped on the side of a road congested with traffic. If the officers do not maintain control of the situation, any unpredictable movement could result in grave injury; therefore, the police officers acted reasonably by minimizing the unnecessary danger added by Petitioner’s recording during an already dangerous situation.

In case one, the police believed that the man was in possession of drugs and as a result of this, they searched him. Based on my understanding for the Fourth Amendment, in the case of Stop and Frisk, I believe that the officer should have questioned the man then frisk him before he continued to search him by putting his hand into the man’s pocket. I say this because there was reasonable suspicion.

In 1986 the development of a sobriety checkpoint came to mind from the Michigan State Police for this would slow traffic down by a few minutes. By having driver go through a checkpoint as that will narrow down the amount of drunk wrecks caused throughout the state. Before a checkpoint was held Sitz filed a complaint regarding to seek relief from potentially being subjected to checkpoints. Does stopping people at a checkpoint violate the 4th Amendment? All checkpoints throughout the state had been put on hold till a verdict was found. It was found the program had violated not only the 4th Amendment but the Michigan’s Constitution 4, 11. Michigan Supreme court had denied the State Police Department for leave to appeal. As this was an illegal

On March 3rd 1991, Los Angeles Police chase a vehicle that was driving erratically. When the vehicle came to a stop after reaching speeds of nearly 120 mph, a total of four cruisers arrived to the scene, including six patrol officers and a sergeant. Of those officers were Laurence Powell, Timothy Wind, Theodore Briseno, Rolando Solano, Tim and Melanie Singer, and Sergeant Stacey Koon. (Linder 2001)

Although there are benefits to the stop and frisk exception, the abuse of or inappropriate application of the practice calls into question the extent of the authority police exercise when their perception of “reasonable suspicion” exists. As Hall states, the officer is not required to advise the individual that they have the right to refuse to provide a consent to search (2014), and as a result, those individuals who have been lead to believe by coercion or lack of knowledge of the law; that they have no say in the search of their person, property, papers, or effects. As a result, searches of this nature may be deemed inadmissible or violations of the individual's rights.

A “stop” is when a law enforcement officer has probable cause or reasonable suspicion that the occupant has committed a criminal offense or traffic violation. (Hall, 2014) However, stops must be limited in duration and consistent in the method. A “stop” is a temporally brief of public detention of a driver without transporting from one place to another location. (Hall, 2014) Stops may not be arbitrary. Stops may occur without suspicion if systematic. The motives of police are not relevant when determining if a stop is lawful. An “arrest” is when a law enforcement officer takes away that individual's fundamental right to freedom. An arrest is characterized by the idea that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave due to the actions of