All follow up responses (minimum of 2) should be at least 250 words.
Students will also be required to respond to at least two (2) other students’ posts with significant comments that have substance. Your responses to your peers’ posts should be engaging and informative. Your responses should contribute in a meaningful way that helps to advance our knowledge of the topics that our class explores. All responses will include a citation with a reference in APA Style. Your responses to another student’s work should be posted as a sub-thread to the student’s original posting. All additional responses are due no later than Sunday at 2359 hours EST. However, please feel free to provide your additional responses earlier than Sunday, which will provide your classmates with the opportunity to reply back to your posts and engage in collaborative discussion with you.
Student #1
Court cases and legal decisions effect the methods used by police officers in their daily duties by setting legal precedents. A legal precedent is a ruling in a court of law that shows how the courts interpret a specific law. This interpretation dictates the actions of law enforcement. One example of this is the U.S. Supreme Court case Arizona v. Johnson.
In Arizona v. Johnson a vehicle was stopped for a minor traffic violation. During the stop the officers involved has no reason to suspect that the occupants of criminal activity. Johnson who was a passenger of the vehicle was asked by Officer Trevizo to exit the car due to the fact that his clothes and behavior prompted her to question him(“ARIZONA v. JOHNSON,” n.d.). Trevizo learned that Johnson was from a town known for Crips gang activity and had been in prison and began to question him about his gang affiliation. She then suspected that he was armed and patted him down for her safety, discovering a gun. Johnson began to resist and was placed in cuffs. He was then charged with possession of a weapon by a felon(“ARIZONA v. JOHNSON,” n.d.).
Johnson was convicted in criminal court and appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that while Johnson was legally detained for the traffic stop the detention had evolved into a consensual conversation about his gang affiliation and Trevizo had no right to pat him down as it was unrelated to the traffic stop(“ARIZONA v. JOHNSON,” n.d.).
This cases demonstrated that just because the office has lawfully detained a vehicle due to a traffic violation they cannot move into a secondary line of questioning without justified reasoning. Had the officer informed the defendant that they traffic stop was over and the defendant had voluntary answered the questions after that point this case could have a very different outcome. The Court stated that “A reasonable passenger would understand that during the time a car is lawfully stopped, he or she is not free to terminate the encounter with the police and move about at will. Nothing occurred in this case that would have conveyed to Johnson that, prior to the frisk, the traffic stop had ended or that he was otherwise free to depart without police permission.” (“ARIZONA v. JOHNSON,” n.d.). This fact is the turning point for the case showing how the officers’ actions moved the routing stop into a fourth amendment violation. This is a teaching point for officers a most Police Academy’s so that the new officers know when their authority stops in a given situation. Police Departments across America have to learn and adapt from the ever changing laws due to court rulings. This keeps the learning environment high in Law enforcement and while maintaining a learning curve that Officers must adapt to.
References
ARIZONA v. JOHNSON. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-
1122.ZS.html
Student #2
A groundbreaking case that changed law enforcement traffic stops and the legality of certain searches during this traffic stop came in a Supreme Court decision. In Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009), the Supreme Court imposed restriction on searches during arrest. The court overturned an arrest of a man by the name of Rodney Gant. Mr. Gant was pulled over for driving with a suspended license and was subsequently handcuffed and set in the back of a patrol car. At this time police searched his car and found cocaine inside of his vehicle and charged him with possession. The Supreme Court upheld the idea that the search of the vehicle following an arrest was only allowed if the arrested person was in reaching distance of the compartment at the time of his arrest or it was reasonable to believe that the vehicle had evidence that related to the offense of interest. Without either one of these two conditions being met the police are required to obtain a warrant to do a thorough search. (Wallentine 2009).
I would absolutely agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in cases like this. While this is the case of the police overreaching their authority and luckily turning up drugs as a result, if this was actually legal you would have people’s cars getting tossed for simple traffic violations. Of course, when there is reasonable belief that evidence exists in the car relevant to someone’s crime then by all means the police may search away. A good example is pulling over someone who is clearly impaired from the use of drugs or alcohol; it is beneficial for the police to search the vehicle for either of the substances to help provide further evidence for their case. As a military policeman we had a way to further search a vehicle without a warrant or probable cause for further evidence. I am able to parallel this case with a personal example. While I was a shift supervisor on Fort Campbell in 2007, one of my patrols executed a routine traffic stop for speeding. A standard check of the suspect’s license revealed a suspended license and a bench warrant for a failure to appear in another state. At this time the subject was apprehended and transported to the Fort Campbell military police station. Now comes the part where we were able to legally search the suspect’s car without their authorization and without a warrant. On federal property any vehicle that is left on the roads or in a parking lot as a result of an arrest is towed to a local impound lot. Military police are required to do a thorough inventory of the vehicle before it is towed to ensure that any personal effects are properly accounted for. If during the inventory of the vehicle illegal items are found such as drugs, weapons or other than substances, the subject can also be charged accordingly. In this particular case we found a small bag of marijuana in the suspect’s center console. Several times in magistrate court I was witness to defense attorneys try and argue the legality of the found items. Each time the magistrate upheld the search as legal.
Wallentine, K. (2009). PoliceOne Analysis: 12 Supreme Court cases affecting cops. Retrieved December 16, 2015, from https://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1964272-PoliceOne-Analysis-12-Supreme-Court-cases-affecting-cops/
