Case Study: Reasonable Suspicion
Case Study: Reasonable Suspicion, Exigent Circumstances, Probable Cause, and Plain View
Lorna J. SteMarie
Kaplan University
CJ 227: Criminal Procedure
September 30, 2013
Case Study: Reasonable Suspicion, Exigent Circumstances, Probable Cause, and Plain View
Question 1. Did Officer Smith have reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop of this vehicle? Yes, Officer Smith had reasonable suspicion. “Reasonable suspicion” is a more relaxed standard than probable cause. Reasonable suspicion exists when a “reasonable person” under the circumstances would, based on specific facts, have reason to believe that a crime had been committed (Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion, n.d.). Probable cause exists when there is a reasonable basis …show more content…
Officer Smith could rely on the premise of “exigent circumstances” to permit her to search the personal effects of the suspect/victim for identification. But the car was stopped on probable cause for a broken tail light, not for suspected possession of drugs. The law states that when a person is stopped for reasonable suspicion or probable cause, the police can only search for objects related to the reason for the search without obtaining a search warrant (When is a Search Warrant Not Necessary?, n.d.). If there were a warrant in this case, Coolidge v. New Hampshire would apply and during the search for the items on the warrant police may also lawfully seize items that are incriminating (Roberson, Wallace, & Stuckey, 2013). This only applies, however, to searches involving warrants. Legal discovery of evidence without a warrant must involve plain view and must be inadvertent. The marijuana baggie was not in plain view. The suspect/victim was unable to give consent for her effects to be searched. The suspect/victim was not in a location to have control over the vehicle and its contents. The traffic stop was for a broken tail light and not suspicion of drug paraphernalia. There was no probable cause for the officer to suspect that marijuana was within the vehicle. Although the discovery was inadvertent, none of the other tests for warrantless search were met. Had Officer Smith smelled marijuana when she stopped the …show more content…
Exigent circumstances (the driver fleeing at a high rate of speed) allowed the officer to give chase to protect herself and the public. The gun was in plain view and could be seized although it is unknown whether or not it was indicative of any crime that had been committed. The marijuana was not in plain view and could not legally be submitted as evidence in a court of
Lorna J. SteMarie
Kaplan University
CJ 227: Criminal Procedure
September 30, 2013
Case Study: Reasonable Suspicion, Exigent Circumstances, Probable Cause, and Plain View
Question 1. Did Officer Smith have reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop of this vehicle? Yes, Officer Smith had reasonable suspicion. “Reasonable suspicion” is a more relaxed standard than probable cause. Reasonable suspicion exists when a “reasonable person” under the circumstances would, based on specific facts, have reason to believe that a crime had been committed (Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion, n.d.). Probable cause exists when there is a reasonable basis …show more content…
Officer Smith could rely on the premise of “exigent circumstances” to permit her to search the personal effects of the suspect/victim for identification. But the car was stopped on probable cause for a broken tail light, not for suspected possession of drugs. The law states that when a person is stopped for reasonable suspicion or probable cause, the police can only search for objects related to the reason for the search without obtaining a search warrant (When is a Search Warrant Not Necessary?, n.d.). If there were a warrant in this case, Coolidge v. New Hampshire would apply and during the search for the items on the warrant police may also lawfully seize items that are incriminating (Roberson, Wallace, & Stuckey, 2013). This only applies, however, to searches involving warrants. Legal discovery of evidence without a warrant must involve plain view and must be inadvertent. The marijuana baggie was not in plain view. The suspect/victim was unable to give consent for her effects to be searched. The suspect/victim was not in a location to have control over the vehicle and its contents. The traffic stop was for a broken tail light and not suspicion of drug paraphernalia. There was no probable cause for the officer to suspect that marijuana was within the vehicle. Although the discovery was inadvertent, none of the other tests for warrantless search were met. Had Officer Smith smelled marijuana when she stopped the …show more content…
Exigent circumstances (the driver fleeing at a high rate of speed) allowed the officer to give chase to protect herself and the public. The gun was in plain view and could be seized although it is unknown whether or not it was indicative of any crime that had been committed. The marijuana was not in plain view and could not legally be submitted as evidence in a court of