Probable Cause and the Fourth Amendment Research

1. Probable Cause

The presence of a fatality is grounds for probable cause that constitutes Okla. Stat. tit. 47, 10-104(B) and 21 OS 2011 711. The definition of probable cause cites reasonable grounds as the standard that determines whether or not an officer infringes on the Fourth Amendment. Looking at the circumstances stated in this statute, death can warrant reasonable ground because of its magnitude. It is reasonable for law enforcement officers to search an individual when they want information about a fatality.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Indeed, the appellate can argue that there was no probable cause because the officers did not have reason to believe that he was intoxicated. The very nature of probable cause is to have a reason to suspect someone in the first place. Officers arrived at the scene of the accident when the appellant was unconscious. Hence, one can argue that there was no probable cause to lead them to the conclusion that he was intoxicated and proceed to search him in the form of administering a test. Looking back at the Oklahoma law from the perspective of the Fourth Amendment, probable cause would be the display of a person being intoxicated. There has to be enough reason to determine that the individual is driving under the influence. However, the situation seems to present a conflict with the Oklahoma statute. In this case, unless a suspect behaves in an overly suspicions manner, there is no probable cause to infer that they are in fact intoxicated. The Oklahoma statute seems to give officers the power to draw blood to determine whether or not a suspect is drunk. The situation thus presents the issue of probable cause being attained after an individual's constitutional rights have been violated.

While the argument is a very strong one, it is imperative to consider that 10-104(B) provides a very unique position. A fatality is a serious aspect that provided a unique situation. It presents probable cause in the sense that drunk driving could be among the primary indicators that there is the involvement of alcohol. In any case, the only way to determine the truth about intoxication is through an administered test. The officers cannot be able to assume that a person is intoxicated by merely looking at them or making unfounded judgments. Hence, a test is the only way to justify the assertions of driving under the influence. Therefore, the whole situation presents probable cause that is unique but does not contravene the terms of the Fourth Amendment. An individual places themselves in a position that warrants probable cause when they decide to drive while drunk.

2. The Totality of Circumstances

In this case, the totality of circumstances refers to the aspects that surround a case and should be considered in determining constitutionality. Firstly, the context of drinking under the influence is premised on statistics that indicate it to be among the leading causes of accidents in the United States. The other circumstance is the aspect of death or serious bodily harm that indicates the magnitude of this crime. The nature of the crime provided grounds for the searchers and seizures without a warrant.

There is also the circumstance of what the officer thought at the time of arrest and rushing the appellant to the emergency room. The officer was under the impression that he would lose his life. He was unconscious and had just been part of a grisly accident that left one of his friends dead. Therefore, this was a conclusion that any reasonable person would consider. The action of drawing blood was a direct response to this circumstance and can be justified.

II. EXGENT CIRCUMSTANCES

Indeed, the defense may argue based on the prima facie aspects of the Fourth Amendment as they relate to this case. On the face of it, it appears that there was no probable cause because the officers did not have any reason to suspect that the accident involved a drunk driver. The absence of a traffic violation that led to the arrest also pointed to the lack of reasonable cause as per the definitions of the Fourth Amendment.

However, there is an issue of exigent circumstances that is an exception to the Fourth Amendment. The circumstances in this case were quite urgent and solely depended on the ability of the officer to draw blood before there was no other opportunity to do so. Consider, for instance, the facts surrounding what happened to the appellant. The paramedics rushed him to the emergency room while he was unconscious and he was quickly prepared for surgery. The situation, therefore presents a very small window for law enforcement to act accordingly. Acquiring a warrant was too procedural and would take at least an hour and a half. The tie could be more depending on the availability of authority figures who needed to provide their permission and signatures. The appellant would die at any moment, which would make it impossible to draw a test that was conclusive. Therefore, the situations presented an emergency because of the fatality involved in the accident and the circumstances surrounding this case. There was need for offices to exercise a search without a warrant in this particular scenario.

The appellant relied upon the decision in Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. Ed. 2d 696 (2013). In this case, the court held that the presence of alcohol in the bloodstream and fear of metabolism could not warrant a justifiable exigent circumstance. Therefore, it held the evidence of the blood to be unconstitutional because of the absence of exigency. While this case certainly shades some doubt on exigency, it is imperative to consider the fact that there were no fatalities. While the appellant did cause an accident, there were no deaths in this case as was the scenario with Cripps. The death of a person most certainly created an urgency that could be termed as an exigent circumstance. The Supreme Court assumed the same position in the case of State vs. Wright. The circumstances and the presence of a fatality were indications of exigent circumstances.

A. Statement of Review

Constitutionality issue- The standard of review in this case encompasses the question of facts surrounding the issue. One fact is that Okla. Stat. tit. 47, 10-104(B) requires every driver to undergo a mandatory test to determine whether or not their intoxication resulted in an accident. The position emanates from the fact that most drinking under the influence is a problem in the United States and the number one cause of road accident fatalities. In this case, both the Trial and Court of Appeal based its decisions on the facts that existed legally at the time. S 47 OS 2011 53 also provides that the test in itself equals a warrant. Therefore, the court interpreted this case as aligned to whether or not the officers broke the law. They were, in fact, enabled to perform these searches by the law itself that considered the testing to be a warrant.

Another aspect of review is the examination of evidence. The fact of this case is the fact that Brian Christopher Cripps was under the influence of alcohol when he was driving. It is also factual that his drinking led to the death of one individual through an accident. The Trial Court and Court of Appeals did not error in interpreting the evidence in place against the accused. The case would have been different had they not found any alcohol in his system. However, the evidence is clear; he was driving under the influence and led to the death of a person. The ruling in the lower and appellate courts were, therefore, consistent with the evidence and facts of the case.

Issue on Exigent Circumstance-The question of law comes into place regarding this issue. In this case, both the Appellate and Trial Courts looked at the fatality of this case and the fact that a test would not be effectively administered upon the death of the accused. In State vs. Cudjo, the courts clearly determined that exigency should follow the law and facts of the case to prevent arbitrary searches. Both of these courts reviewed the laws and facts in place before coming to the conclusion of these circumstances. The totality of circumstances surrounding fatality and intoxication presents a situation of exigency that is consistent with this exception to the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, the Court of Appeals maintained the De Novo rule when it reviewed this case. Its decisions did not factor into the proceedings of the lower case and were independent of any influence.

It is also imperative to review the decisions in this case thus far using the standard of procedural errors. The appellate court rightfully reviewed the issue at law that is the constitutionality of the matter. It did not incur any errors in determining constitutionality and sought to resolve this issue based on the concerns of the appellant.

B. The purpose of Oklahoma Statute

In assessing the constitutionality debate, it is imperative to consider the purpose of the implied law in Oklahoma. The states seeks to investigate and subsequently reduce instances of individuals driving under the influence and endangering the lives of others. Just like the Fourth Amendment, this statute seeks to protect individuals from drivers who drive while under the influence. The constitutionality of this statute, therefore, should be considered in scope of its intention. The intention is that of protection, which can warrant its constitutionality since this is not any different from the Fourth Amendment. In States vs. Wright, the courts did consider the intention behind the Oklahoma statute. It was not meant to harm the rights of individuals, but, rather, protect the lives of other motorists.