Probable Cause -Case AnalysisPlace Your Order Now
How Does Our System Work?
It will take just three steps and two minutes to place your order
Submit your Question
Fill in the order form with all your instructions. Click submit then complete payment for your order.
Best Writer Assigned
We review your order's requirements to determine the most suited writer for it. We then assign it.
Calculate the price of your order
Probable Cause- Case Review
Probable Cause -Case Study
In the case involving Smith, I would move to grant the suppression motion against the evidence seized by Officer Jones during his patrol. This is because the evidence was illegally seized under the fourth amendment, following the failure of the officer to inform the petitioner of his right to refuse to consent to the search upon request. The Fourth Amendment’s protection of unreasonable seizures is meant to ensure that police officers do not intrude into private spaces, not unless they have a search warrant or probable cause. As held in the United States v. Watson, government officials may conduct warrantless searches and seizures, as well as arrests, in public spaces as long as they have reasonable suspicion. A car that is on the road is in a public space and thus can be searched, unlike a home, which holds a level of sanctity that is protected under the law as held in Payton v. New York. Furthermore, as held in Whren v. United States, a police officer may proceed to stop a vehicle on the basis of reasonable suspiscion or probable cause of violation of a traffic offense, even if the officer’s intentions were ulterior. In consideration of such a finding, Officer Jones, was not in violation of the fourth amendment when he stopped Mr. Smith, regardless of his intention to make a drug bust, given that the petitioner was in violation of the legal provision concerning lanes limited to specific use.
However, it was in violation of the fourth amendment for the officer to fail to inform the petitioner of his right to refuse to consent to a search upon the former’s request of such consent (Burke 514). Mr. Smith made a decision without a complete understanding of his rights under the law, curtsey of the officer’s intentions to find a drug peddler. The officer had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion that Mr. Smith was involved in drug peddling and thus, the decision to deny him the right to make an informed decision with regards to consenting to a search was in violation of his rights. Hence, the evidence collected is inadmissible before the court........................GET A PLAGIARISM FREE COPY