Supreme Court Decision Governing Lawful Vehicle Search Paper Example

Fact Breakdown

Officer Bird was patrolling Downtown Center City at night when she came across speeding red sports car which she persuaded to stop. She rapped on the window and through point view; she realized the driver was shoving something under the front seat. The driver was ordered to step outside the vehicle, to turn around and place his hands in the vehicle roof. Weapon pat down was conducted, but no weapon was found. His name was Alejandro Quintana according to his identification. She conducted an unauthorized vehicle search where got a revolver and small bag containing white substance next to the revolver. Quintana menaced the officer bird to check the trunk which she didn't. He was arrested.

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

Save 25%

Lawful Vehicle Search

An officer can conduct a lawful vehicle search under the following conditions: when given consent to search, if the officer suspects of the existence of implicating evidence in the vehicle, if the officer has the reason to believe that vehicle search is important for the officers to own protection and when one is arrested (Gizzi, 2011). An officer can conduct a vehicle search without a warrant or if they are not authorized. In the case of an illegal search, one has the right to go to court. If one consent a search, however, if evidence obtained will be used against that person.

Supreme Court decision Governing Lawful Vehicle Search

According to the Supreme Court decision, assess to weapon and destruction of evidence by the suspect is determined at search time not arrest time The suspect is examined after the suspect gets out of the vehicle, arrested and secured. There is no need for searching the suspect vehicle because the suspect is secured and cannot destroy evidence or access weapon (Davies, 2010). Secondly, conditions exclusive to the vehicle situation vindicate a search event to a lawful arrest when evidence related to the crime may be found in the vehicle thirdly if there is a possible reason to believe that the vehicle comprehends evidence of criminal activity. According to the United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982). It allows in all areas of the vehicle where there could be the possibility of evidence. It allows searches to be conducted for evidence related to offenses instead of breach of arrest.

Sample Cases

Case 1

At their normal patrol police at Elm Street, they stopped a speeding vehicle and detected a smell of phenylacetic acid commonly used to produce methamphetamine coming from Nelly's vehicle. Through smell observation and point view officers also identified handgun and equipment's mostly used to manufacture methamphetamine at the plain view on the back door at the back seat. She was asked to step out of the vehicle, arrested and kept safe before searching.

Case 2

As an officer was guarding Upper Hill, they came across James's vehicle which she requested to stop. Through point view, she could see a handgun and cocaine at the front seat. His license also had expired. He was requested to get out the vehicle, arrested and secured. James was arrested because he drove with a suspended license. The officer conducted a vehicle search on James's vehicle where they found cocaine and weapon.

According to case 1, officers had enough reason to search Nelly's vehicle because through plain view and smell observation they were sure of illegal substances in the vehicle that could be used to manufacture methamphetamine. Case 1 is related to our case because the police had conducted a plain view and vehicle search. It is evident that the officers had control of the suspect because they never wanted the suspect to take the weapon or interfere with the evidence that was in the vehicle. Case 1 and case 2 are related to our case because the officers had to search the vehicles so that they can get the necessary evidence required to incriminate the suspect.

Officer Bird's actions satisfy the constitution because she requested Quintana to get out of the vehicle after point view before conducting a weapon pat-down then arresting him and also she searched the vehicle and got a Powderly substance and the revolver. According to the constitutional requirements, the suspect is examined after the suspect gets out of the vehicle, arrested and secured. It is important to search the vehicle if it comprehends evidence of criminal activity according to the United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) it allows in search in all areas of the vehicle where there could be the possibility of evidence. Also according to the law, it is legal to arrest someone if they have illegal substances.

It could be legal for officer Bird to search Quintana truck because the supreme court had changed the law that stated that the officer are supposed to search the passenger section and containers in case of any as a coexistent incident s they proceed to arrest the person who had the vehicle at that time to make sure that the suspect does not get close to the evidence or the weapon because by doing so the suspect may encounter with the weapon or the evidence thus destroying it (Davies, 2010). This means that the case cannot proceed due to lack of evidence.at my point I think she never conducted the truck search because she never knew of the new Supreme Court Laws.

References

Davies, T. Y. (2010). The Supreme Court giveth and the Supreme Court taketh away: the century of Fourth Amendment" search and seizure" doctrine. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 100(3), 933-1042.

Gizzi, M. C. (2011). Pretextual stops, vehicle searches, and crime control: an examination of strategies used on the frontline of the war on drugs. Criminal Justice Studies, 24(2), 139-152.