\n
Yes, Officer Pasquale\u2019s 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\u2019s 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<\/em>. Officer Pasquale had objective grounds for making the stop, and therefore the seizure was constitutional.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n3. 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?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Answer<\/span>+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Case Study 4<\/h2>\n\n\n\n Sometown\u2019s Police Department\u2019s 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\u2019s arrest:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Comes now Chester Brown, being first duly sworn and upon oath, does state:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On October 17, 2014, we received a call from the hospital, saying that Samantha Jones, a neighbor of Wanda Weasel\u2019s, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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\u20193\u2019, and weighs 200 pounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In interviewing the neighbors, I verified that Wanda Weasel lives at 1234 Vine Avenue, Apartment 3B.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a result of this information, it is my belief that Wanda Weasel assaulted Samantha Jones on October 17, 2014.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\/s\/ Chester Brown<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Affiant<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of October, 2010.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\/s\/ Robyn Hitchcock<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Clerk, Associate Division Circuit Court of Arthur County<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Questions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n 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?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Answer<\/span>+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The elements required for an arrest warrant are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThe magistrate must make an independent determination that probable cause exists for the arrest.<\/li>\n\n\n\n The magistrate\u2019s determination must be supported by information given under oath. <\/li>\n\n\n\n The warrant must contain a particularized description of the person to be arrested.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n2. If Jack Straw had not been willing to have his name used, would Officer Brown\u2019s affidavit have been sufficient? Why or why not? If Wanda Weasel had robbed Samantha Jones\u2019s home when Jones wasn\u2019t home, would it have been sufficient? Why or why not?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Answer<\/span>+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
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\u2019s apartment. What will Officer Brown need to arrest Wanda? Why?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Answer<\/span>+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n
In addition to an arrest warrant, Officer Brown will need a search warrant to search for Weasel in Sam\u2019s home. Sam has a Fourth Amendment right against warrantless searches of his home. When a suspect is hiding in another person\u2019s home, police need a search warrant in order to search that person\u2019s home to find the suspect.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Case Study 5<\/h2>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cStop! Police! Drop your weapon!\u201d he yelled to the man. The suspect, surprised, let go of the woman and ran into the alleyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHold it right there!\u201d shouted Officer Rockwell. He jumped up and grabbed the suspect\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Questions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n 1. What are the Fourth Amendment restrictions on the use of force?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Answer<\/span>+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
2. Was Officer Rockwell\u2019s use of force justified? Why or why not?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Answer<\/span>+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n
No, the degree of force used by Officer Rockwell was not justified. Officer Rockwell\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
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?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Answer<\/span>+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Case Study 1 Sticky-Fingered Sam was up to his old tricks. As Officer Blake patrolled Sometown\u2019s 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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":26,"featured_media":0,"parent":338,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-360","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/360","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/26"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=360"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/360\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":365,"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/360\/revisions\/365"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/338"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=360"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}