Case Study 1
Sticky-Fingered Sam was up to his old tricks. As Officer Blake patrolled Sometown’s center one Tuesday morning, she observed Sam dash out of the Square L convenience store, clutching his jacket.
Sam loved Square L SnackLs and was known for showing up when they were delivered. While SnackLs were a fairly inexpensive item, Sam had taken enough of them in the last few months to put a dent in the store’s profits. The Square L had gotten sneaky about SnackL deliveries, but Sam must have found out.
Officer Blake heard Mary, everyone’s favorite clerk at the L, holler from inside the store, “Sam! Get back in here and pay for that stuff!” She was short-staffed that morning, though, and had customers, so she did not leave the store to chase after him.
Sam was in such a hurry that he didn’t realize that he was running straight toward Officer Blake. Just before he collided with Officer Blake, Sam looked up.
“Good Morning, Sam,” Officer Blake said “What do you have there in your jacket?”
“Nothing, Officer Blake,” Sam said sheepishly. “Fine day, isn’t it?”
A package of SnackLs started to tumble out of his pocket. Sam grimaced and then said, “Well, I’d best be on my way.”
Sam made a move to run, but Officer Blake caught his arm. “Not so fast, Sam. I’m afraid I am going to have to ask you some questions.” Sam squirmed a little in Officer Blake’s grasp, but eventually he complied. “OK, Officer Blake,” Sam sighed. “What do you want to know?”
Questions
1. What kind of encounter occurred between Officer Blake and Sam? Why?
This encounter was a seizure, because Officer Blake had to get Sam under his control by physical restraint. A seizure occurs whenever a suspect is brought under a police officer’s control by either submission to a show of legal authority or physical restraint.
2. Does the Fourth Amendment apply in this situation? Why or why not? If yes, then at what point did it come into play?
Yes, this encounter has met the threshold of the Fourth Amendment. Once Officer Blake had restrained Sam, the Fourth Amendment kicked in.
3. On what grounds did Officer Blake seize Sam? Assuming that this encounter goes further, would it pass constitutional muster?
Officer Blake seized Sam because she saw him run out of the Square L, clutching his jacket. She heard Mary hollering after him to pay for his SnackLs. As Officer Blake was talking to Sam, a package of SnackLs fell out of Sam’s pocket, and Sam acted guiltily. This adds up to Officer Blake having a reasonable suspicion that Sam was involved in criminal activity.
Case Study 2
Crime was on the rise in Sometown. Calls to the Sometown Police Department reporting drug-related violence had increased dramatically in recent months, and Sometown’s citizens were getting nervous. The Sometown Police Department responded by increasing patrols in a number of neighborhoods, and officers had been instructed to be on the lookout for anything suspicious.
While on night patrol in the Sometown Heights neighborhood, one of the neighborhoods where crime has gone up the most, Officer Smithwick noticed a group of five young men huddled together on the street, near an abandoned warehouse, talking. She observed that one of them was wearing a crimson jacket, the color associated with one of the local gangs in the area. This activity looked suspicious to Officer Smithwick, and she decided to investigate further.
Officer Smithwick approached the young men, who turned to face her as she got closer. “So what are four nice guys like you doing out so late?” she asked.
The young man in the crimson jacket replied, “Just enjoying the night air, Officer.” His friends laughed and shifted about.
“We’ve been getting a lot of calls to this neighborhood for drug-related assaults. Is there anything you’d care to share?”
The young men shook their heads. The young man wearing the crimson jacket turned to leave. Officer Smithwick grabbed him and held him against the warehouse. “Where do you think you’re going? I think you have information you would like to share, don’t you? Let’s see some identification.”
“I don’t know anything! Let go of me!”
Officer Smithwick did not let go of him. Instead, she searched him and found a knife and drugs in his pockets. Officer Smithwick arrested the young man wearing the crimson jacket.
Questions
1. What degree of suspicion did Officer Smithwick have for this encounter? What is the response permitted under the Constitution for this degree of suspicion?
Officer Smithwick was operating on a hunch. A number of drug-related offenses had taken place in Sometown Heights, and the young man she arrested was wearing a jacket associated with one of the local gangs in the area. However, she did not see any criminal activity take place. It is not illegal to stand on the street, nor is it illegal to wear a crimson jacket. For a hunch, the response permitted under the Constitution is a consensual interaction.
2. Officer Smithwick found a weapon and drugs when she searched the young man. Were her actions permissible under the Constitution? Why or why not?
No, Officer Smithwick’s actions were not permissible. Under the Fourth Amendment, for Officer Smithwick to seize and search the young man, she would have required reasonable suspicion that the young man was involved in criminal activity. Officer Smithwick did not have grounds for reasonable suspicion after observing the young man standing with others on the street. The young man was free to leave. Even though her hunch that the young man wearing a crimson jacket was involved in the drug trade was correct, she still violated the young man’s Fourth Amendment rights.
3. What would happen to the evidence that Officer Smithwick discovered on the young man with the crimson jacket?
Even though Officer Smithwick discovered that the young man in the crimson jacket was involved in criminal activity, her search of the victim was unconstitutional, and therefore the evidence would be inadmissible.
Case Study 3
Sometown’s drug-related crime was getting out of hand, and citizens had been in an uproar. Officers of the Sometown Police Department had been instructed to use all lawful means at their disposal to crack down on the problem. Officer Pasquale was out on patrol in Sometown Heights, looking for suspicious activity.
As he was turning from Broadway onto State Street, Officer Pasquale noticed a black luxury sedan with tinted windows driving down the street. Such a car was out of place in the neighborhood, and so Officer Pasquale decided to follow it. The car was going the speed limit, and the taillights were functioning. Officer Pasquale kept his distance, as he was hoping that the driver would make a mistake.
At the intersection of State and Vine, the light turned red. While the car Officer Pasquale was following slowed down, it did not come to a complete stop before turning right. Officer Pasquale switched on his siren and pulled the car over.
When he got to the driver’s window to ask for license and registration, he heard the male driver and the female passenger arguing about what to do. The driver lowered the window.
“Please step out of the car, Sir. You, too, Ma’am.”
The couple stepped out of the car, and the driver asked what the problem was.
“You ran a red light, Sir. Do you have any weapons on you or in the vehicle?”
The driver’s eyes widened. “Of course not, Officer.” The driver was wearing tight-fitting jeans and a tee shirt, and it did not appear as though he had a weapon on him. The passenger, who was wearing a summer dress, similarly did not appear to be armed. Officer Pasquale did not smell alcohol.
“Where are you headed? We don’t usually see cars like this in Sometown Heights.”
The driver answered that they were lost and were looking for an address uptown. Officer Pasquale then asked both the driver and the passenger for identification and shined the flashlight in the car. He did not see anything, and so he ordered them both to remain outside the vehicle while he ran their licenses. Both checked out. As he did not see anything else suspicious, Officer Pasquale let the couple go on their way.
Questions
1. What kind of a stop was this? Why?
This was a pretextual traffic stop. A pretextual stop is a traffic stop made for an observed traffic violation in which the officer’s real motive is to check out a hunch about unrelated criminal activity. Officer Pasquale was patrolling a neighborhood known for drug activity and saw a car that looked out of place in the neighborhood. He followed it and waited for an opportunity to pull it over.
2. Did Officer Pasquale’s actions satisfy constitutional requirements? Why or why not? What Supreme Court decision factors into your answer?
Yes, Officer Pasquale’s actions did satisfy constitutional requirements. He did not pull the car over until after the driver had run a red light. He was in keeping with his constitutional authority to ask the driver and the passenger to step out of the vehicle and ask if they had weapons. Shining a flashlight in the vehicle is a lawful activity, as was running the couple’s licenses to check for criminal records. When everything checked out, Officer Pasquale let the couple go. The Supreme Court decision that directly factors into this question is Whren v. United States. Officer Pasquale had objective grounds for making the stop, and therefore the seizure was constitutional.
3. In this situation, would Officer Pasquale have had grounds to pat down the driver and the passenger for weapons or drugs? Why or why not?
No, Officer Pasquale would not have had grounds to pat down the driver and the passenger for weapons or drugs. Patdowns require reasonable suspicion that the driver and the passenger frisked are armed and dangerous. Other than the car being a luxury sedan in a part of town where those cars are not usually seen, there was nothing else to indicate that the couple inside was involved in criminal activity.
Case Study 4
Sometown’s Police Department’s Officer Brown believed he had probable cause to arrest Wanda Weasel for assaulting Samantha Jones. He prepared the following affidavit to present to Judge Jetson so that she could issue a warrant for Wanda Weasel’s arrest:
Comes now Chester Brown, being first duly sworn and upon oath, does state:
I am a police officer with the Sometown Police Department in Arthur County. The date of this Affidavit in Support of an Application for an Arrest Warrant is October 19, 2014. I have been employed as a Sometown Police Officer for the past two years. During this period, I have participated in more than 35 arrests for assault and battery.
On October 17, 2014, we received a call from the hospital, saying that Samantha Jones, a neighbor of Wanda Weasel’s, who lives at 1234 Vine Avenue, Apartment 4A, claimed that Wanda Weasel had punched her in the nose, resulting in it being broken, and had kicked her several times between 1:15 and 1:30 p.m. that day. I went and interviewed Samantha Jones at the hospital and verified her injuries.
I knocked on some doors at 1234 Vine Avenue, and Jack Straw, who lives in Apartment 3A, said that he witnessed the altercation between Weasel and Jones. He says that Jones had asked Weasel to take better care of her trash. Weasel had been taking it out the day after trash day, and it was attracting rodents. At that point, Weasel became very angry and punched Jones in the nose. He stated that Weasel then proceeded to kick Jones several times before running down the stairs and out into the street.
Two other neighbors, who wish to remain anonymous, stated that they had seen the altercation between Weasel and Jones. Neither of them knew what precipitated it, but they both claim that Ms. Jones did not fight back. They said that Wanda Weasel had left the premises shortly after the altercation and had not returned.
I ran a criminal records check and learned that Wanda Weasel has one conviction for assault (1993). The criminal records show that Wanda Weasel is 45 years old, is 6’3’, and weighs 200 pounds.
In interviewing the neighbors, I verified that Wanda Weasel lives at 1234 Vine Avenue, Apartment 3B.
As a result of this information, it is my belief that Wanda Weasel assaulted Samantha Jones on October 17, 2014.
/s/ Chester Brown
Affiant
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of October, 2010.
/s/ Robyn Hitchcock
Clerk, Associate Division
Circuit Court of Arthur County
Questions
1. Would this affidavit be sufficient for Judge Jetson to issue an arrest warrant for Wanda Weasel? Why or why not? What are the elements required for a warrant to be issued?
Yes, this affidavit would be sufficient for Judge Jetson to issue an arrest warrant, because it allows the judge to make an independent determination of whether probable cause exists for an arrest.
The elements required for an arrest warrant are:
- The magistrate must make an independent determination that probable cause exists for the arrest.
- The magistrate’s determination must be supported by information given under oath.
- The warrant must contain a particularized description of the person to be arrested.
2. If Jack Straw had not been willing to have his name used, would Officer Brown’s affidavit have been sufficient? Why or why not? If Wanda Weasel had robbed Samantha Jones’s home when Jones wasn’t home, would it have been sufficient? Why or why not?
Yes, the affidavit would have been sufficient. When information comes from a victim, veracity and basis for knowledge may be assumed. If this had been another type of crime, like a robbery, the anonymous testimony would not have been sufficient. When information comes from anonymous sources, veracity and basis for knowledge must be corroborated, either by informing details that are not easily obtainable, or through independent police work.
3. The affidavit mentions that Wanda Weasel has fled the scene. Now, assume that Officer Brown finds out that she is holing up at our friend Sticky-Fingered Sam’s apartment. What will Officer Brown need to arrest Wanda? Why?
In addition to an arrest warrant, Officer Brown will need a search warrant to search for Weasel in Sam’s home. Sam has a Fourth Amendment right against warrantless searches of his home. When a suspect is hiding in another person’s home, police need a search warrant in order to search that person’s home to find the suspect.
Case Study 5
Sometown Police Officer Rockwell was patrolling downtown last Saturday night. It was right around the time the bars shut down for the evening, so he was on the lookout for possible drunk drivers. As he turned from Congress Street and onto Prospect Street, he spotted an armed man attempting to wrestle a young woman into an alleyway. Officer Rockwell stopped his car, and jumped out.
“Stop! Police! Drop your weapon!” he yelled to the man. The suspect, surprised, let go of the woman and ran into the alleyway.
Officer Rockwell checked quickly to make sure that the young woman was not harmed and then told her to stay there, as he ran after the suspect. He radioed for backup as he ran. He caught up to the suspect as he was attempting to climb a chain link fence.
“Hold it right there!” shouted Officer Rockwell. He jumped up and grabbed the suspect’s leg, as the suspect attempted to get over the fence. The suspect fell off the fence, and his gun fell on the pavement with him. Officer Rockwell kicked the gun away, as he blocked a punch from the suspect. The suspect came at him again, this time hitting Officer Rockwell in the stomach. The suspect then went for his gun, but Officer Rockwell landed a kick to his chest and then punched him in the face. As the suspect reeled from the force of the blow, Officer Rockwell slammed him against the fence, and the suspect stopped struggling. Officer Rockwell, however, proceeded to beat him with his nightstick until the suspect was unconscious. Then he placed him under arrest.
Questions
1. What are the Fourth Amendment restrictions on the use of force?
The force used in making an arrest or other seizure must be objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer, including the seriousness of the crime, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others, actively resists arrest, or attempts to flee.
2. Was Officer Rockwell’s use of force justified? Why or why not?
No, the degree of force used by Officer Rockwell was not justified. Officer Rockwell’s use of force up until he beat the suspect with his nightstick was justified. However, the suspect had been subdued prior to the beating, and therefore Officer Rockwell used excessive force when he beat him. Even though the suspect had been armed and dangerous, he no longer had his gun at the time of the beating and did not pose an immediate threat. Therefore, Officer Rockwell did not make a reasonable split-second judgment at the time of the beating.
3. The beating by Officer Rockwell caused the suspect to lapse into a coma. A week later, the suspect died of his injuries. What happens to Officer Rockwell?
Deadly force is not justified if the suspect does not pose an imminent threat to others at the time of its use. Officer Rockwell could face federal charges for excessive use of force.