CRJ325 - CASE STUDY 1- THE OFFICER AND THE DRUG ARREST

THE OFFICER AND THE DRUG ARREST
CASE STUDY ONE

1



The Officer and the Drug Arrest
Strayer University
Felicia McCaw
Professor Christopher J. Abreau
CRJ325
Online Spring 2017
April 16, 2017

The Officer and the Drug Arrest
2
During the course of correct procedure for dealing with everyday police work comes the responsibility of accordance and duty to act on rules and protection of individuals when responding to calls that reflect a criminal activity is ensuing or has ensued. Therefore, attendance to Amendment 4 of the Bill of Rights summarily reflect protection from unreasonable searches and seizures which also pertain to detentions, stops, arrests and searches of people, motor vehicles and places.

Also, is the reflective thought that the individual has constitutional rights under Amendment 14 and as such it protects the process of due process with equal protection to fairness without bias, discrimination, racial profiling or bigotry being an aspect during an interaction between the police or the perk (suspicious individual or party to question). Therefore, any active unfairness levied by the police against a perk is readily challengeable and becomes first a question of fundamental unfairness and next a question of racial intimidation, and finally a question of racial identity and right to live.

Because of this Amendment 5 stands as a right to provide protection against double jeopardy which consist of being punished twice for the same crime, self-incrimination, and the taking of life, liberty, or property without processing due process of law. Intertwined with Amendment 5 is Amendment 6 that provides the right to speedy trial, public trial, impartial jury, right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, right to confront witnesses, right to summon witnesses and right to have assistance by counsel.

As parallel to each protectant are case laws, rule of law and judicial review that actively examine the procedure and processes used in appropriating and apprehending suspects or the question of correctness in actions, steps that may be questionable or in conflict with the

The Officer and the Drug Arrest
3

Constitution and Amendments. Therefore, accountability is underlined and tied closely to the rule of law and as such this prevents the abridging of rights, privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

In support the due process clause and equal protection clause are provisional preventa-tives that restricts and control behavior of the policing authority to allow the perk or populace fairness and equality in treatment as well as staying within the bounds of rules, training and procedural guidelines. In effect because of this Amendment 4 is supportive because it parallels the purpose of fairness and prevents harassment, bias and discrimination that is geared toward racial profiling, stereotypes, and unfounded personal thoughts, concepts and prejudices.

Amendment 5 helps also govern conduct with restrictions and based fairness in equal treatment for all. Amendment 6 is also a parallel to coincide with correct procedure, guidelines and allowance to disclose right to protect self and know the limitation of courts, right to interpretative counsel and ability to challenge and question the accusation or allegation.

As with the due process clause and the equal protection clause both provide the support for the right to due process and right to equal protection. Therefore, the approach, seizure and searches will be done fairly when dealing with a suspicion, reasonable suspicion or a probable cause. Further in relation the case laws, judicial review and rules of law along with the equal protection clause and due process clause work in relational purpose because as scenarios change therefore does regulations and procedures become adjusted as challenges are levied, won, changed and subsequently cause modification in approach as well as policy changes.

The Officer and the Drug Arrest
4

In context, a search is when expected reasonable privacy based upon societal expectation is infringed upon due to suspected crime. Whereas, a seizure of property occurs when there is a questionable right that occurs and leads to confiscation and nullification of an individual’s interest and rights to property if it relates to criminal activity and continuance. As with searches they can be done with consent or without. If consent is not garnered, usual procedures is to facilitate and question and access whether probable cause exist to acquire warrant. A warrantless search is permissible if purpose facilitates and confirms suspicion of criminal activity or has the ability to be confirmed as reasonable suspicion.

Actions that constitute and support a warrantless would be evasion, physical body language, alteration of path when sighting or intersection of police, tips, hotline or an APB. Lastly, a stop would be clarified as a routine detention to question or inquire if it relates to probable displays of criminal activity, unusual driving patterns, furtive actions or blatant disregard of rules and regulations.

In relation to the utilizing of Amendments, constitutional safeguards which relate specifically to the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments is the following example:

Officer Jones is a veteran officer with the Smithville police department. He received information that a citizen living in the local housing project was selling drugs. This information was conveyed to Officer Jones by an anonymous caller to the officer on his personal cell phone. Officer Jones immediately went to the housing project and stopped the citizen as he was leaving his apartment. Officer Jones searched the citizen and found drugs.

First based on reliable informants who provide consistency and relative correctness and reliability, Officer Jones is within his rights as policing authority to intervene and detain and subject the citizen to a warrantless search. The constitutionality of the act is correct and does not compromise Amendment 4 because the search is based on a reliable source and not an active

The Officer and the Drug Arrest
5

attempt to single out and be an active part of racial profiling, bias, discrimination, bigotry or stereotype. Probable cause and reasonable suspicion was established due to the tip and then confirmed by drugs found on the citizen.

In this scenario, all three ways based on a tip the warrantless search, probable cause and reasonable suspicion work in compliance and as a parallel to approach, question, search and arrest due to finding illicit drugs on person and in possession of citizen. In support, the People v. Loretta is a similar scenario that assist in supporting the actions in searching for drugs in relation to mannerisms, secretive behavior and hidden illegal substances on person. Consequently, as in this case with Officer Jones Amendment 4 was not violated, Amendment 5 was granted with the reading of the Miranda Rights, Amendment 6 as parallel to Amendment 5 provides protection to not incriminate self and wait until counsel is present to answer questions and lastly Amendment 14 provides the right to due process and equal protection during the arrest. interim, before and after trial.


References

CRIMINAL LAW – FOURTH AMENDMENT – NINTH CIRCUIT CONSIDERS COMMUNITY’S RACIAL TENSION WITH POLICE IN FINDING ILLEGAL SEIZURE AND LACK OF VOLUNTARY CONSENT. United States v. Washington, 490F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2007). (2008). Harvard Law Review, 121(6), 1669-1676.
laquinta, J. (2014). INTERPRETING SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST IN NEW YORK: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE. Touro Law Review, 30(4), 1071-1100.
Rashkover, C. (2014). JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICE INTRUSIONS. Touro Law Review, 30(4), 1101-1120.
Search and seizure. (2017, April 09). Retrieved April 16, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure


el final