The police officer has just stopped a car for traffic violations but detects some drugs in the car. This is a legal vehicle stop because the concerned officer did not just carry out a random search. Traffic laws had been violated, and this was sufficient enough to stop the car. The detection of drugs was done reasonably because he located the drugs while carrying out the traffic stop. A seizure of the drugs will need to take place. This starts with a collection of all the drugs or incriminating evidence. As an officer, one should abide by California state law manuals on a collection of physical evidence. The sample will need to be placed in an evidence container that can then be used in a court of law. That container should hold some information about the item number, the case number as well a description of what is contained inside. This should be sealed to prevent contamination. The signature of the patrol officer should also be placed on the container. The material should then be transferred to the lab; transfer of custody should be recorded immediately.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution will be highly relevant to this case because it protects citizens against unreasonable seizures and searches. In this case, a search of the adult’s car was not done so search laws do not apply. However, a seizure of the person and the drugs did occur. A seizure is said to have occurred if a person’s freedom of movement has been undermined (Davies 600). However, the law states that this needs to be done based on objective evidence. The patrol officer spotted drugs in the person’s car, and that is reasonable enough to warrant a seizure. If the adult refused to answer questions by the officer and only the minor spoke, then this adult is well within his right to remain quiet and should not be punished for it.
Therefore, based on the detection of the drugs through the officer’s observation, this adult should be arrested and driven to a police station.
The police officer interviewed some of the passengers in the car and was told about the source of the drugs. The incriminating statements should be recorded immediately and used as evidence. This information will be vital to the prosecutors in the court of law.
A search and seizure in the drug distributor’s house will be necessary. There was plenty of physical evidence found at the drug source. In the house, some 5 kilos of drugs were found at the location. Not all the five kilos will need to be used as an exhibit in law; only a small portion of it should be submitted to the lab for testing. The concerned officer will need to adhere to chain-of-custody requirements. The quantity, location, and parties handling the evidence at every step of the process will be recorded. Since the impounded drugs were stored in a secure place, the officer can only access them through the authorized entry. He will need to record the quantity that will have been taken to the courts for testing. This will be confirmed by comparing the figures. Taking the samples to the lab will ascertain that the concerned substance is an illegal or controlled one. However, to prevent the further use of these drugs, the five kilos will need to be taken to a safe house in a police station where they can then be destroyed after completion of the case. It was also found that there was a firearm in the scene. Certain codes apply to the handling of firearms during a stop or search and seizure. Here, the firearm should be handled carefully to avoid the placement of the officer’s fingerprints on it. The position of the hammer should be recorded and unloading of the ammunition should be done. It should then be packaged well and labeled. The gun will need to be submitted to the lab for fingerprinting to support the assertion that the piece of ammunition belonged to the drug dealers.
The concerned drug dealers might also try to use the Fourth Amendment to The US Constitution as a means of protecting themselves against any charges made by the officer. They might affirm that the search and seizure were not legal because there was no warrant. The Fourth Amendment stipulates the conditions that must be fulfilled before a search warrant can be issued by the court (Williams 54). It specifically states that all people have a right to be secure against unreasonable seizures and searches of their houses, persons, papers, and effects. Furthermore, warrants for searches shall be issued only when there is probable cause. To ensure that the officer is acting lawfully, there will be a need to consider one major concept, which is the reasonableness rule. For any search to be carried out, the constitution requires a reasonableness test.
The officer must ensure that there is a fair degree of suspicion to elicit the search. In this case, the officer was informed by the parties in the car about the drug source. Since this was not a matter that needed immediate attention, the patrol officer needed to obtain a search warrant before entering that house. For the court to issue the search warrant, probable cause must be demonstrated. This means that there should be sufficient legal reasons to search. Carroll v. the United States, 267 US 132 (1925) put forward the conditions for probable cause. Probable cause occurs when the facts available to the concerned officer would lead him to believe that the person to be searched deserves condemnation. In this case, the patrol officer had probable cause because he was tipped off by an informant. This was sufficient enough to obtain a warrant, and he should therefore proceed to get it. With the warrant, the officer should then go and search the residential area of the drug dealers.
Another important case that can shed some light on the proper treatment of individuals during searches in Illinois v Gates 462 US 213 (1983). In this case, an informant sent an anonymous letter to a Detective concerning some neighbors who stored and distributed drugs in their basement. The anonymous tipper further added that the suspects were a couple who drove to Florida to obtain the drugs. The Detective confirmed that the couple had bought tickets to go to Florida. They also spent the night in a hotel. These events together with the letter allowed the officer to obtain a warrant. The officer entered the suspects’ residence and found drugs and weapons. The suspects claimed that the evidence could not be used against them because it was obtained unlawfully. The Illinois Circuit Court ruled that the search was unlawful because the reliability, basis of knowledge, and the veracity of the informant’s report were not sufficient enough to elicit probable cause. However, the Supreme Court overturned this case by lowering the threshold for determining probable cause. They stated that knowledge, veracity, and reliability of the informant’s report should not be separately assessed but be intertwined. In this case study, the patrol officer received information from one of the participants in the car. If the adult provided the information, then it can be stated that there was a fair probability that criminal activity took place in the chosen house. However, if the minor offered the tip, then further investigations needed to be done to strengthen the case for a search. As a police officer, I would strive to look for evidence on the drug-dealing house before searching the residence if my informant was a minor. This would be done by the analysis of the surrounding environment for potential clues. Since a drug lab is just next to the house of residence under investigation, then that would strengthen the case for a search. Furthermore, observations of the behavior patterns of the suspects could also give hints on their status as drug distributors.
Before any person can be arrested, the Fourth Amendment states that the arresting authority must ensure that the circumstances and the facts within that officer’s knowledge would lead any other prudent person to believe that the suspect had committed a crime. In this case study, the patrol officer had sufficient probable cause to link the concerned driver at the traffic stop with the drugs because they were in his car.
The officer should arrest this individual for drug possession.
The other party involved five adults; one was on probation and the other on parole. The other three lived in that residential area. In the case of the three people that lived in the house, conspiracy laws apply. A 1988 Anti-drug law applies a mandatory sentence in which all members of a drug-trafficking conspiracy are to be held liable for all the drugs dealt in that house. As a patrol officer, I would arrest those three members. They would be taken to court and their case would be analyzed depending on their history.
In the case of Miranda v Arizona (1966), it was asserted that individuals had particular rights when arrested. All the arrested people should be told about their Miranda rights, which include: a right to remain silent, to be told about using the actions and words of that person in a court of law, a right to an attorney, a right to appointment of an attorney if one cannot afford and choosing to answer questions in the presence or absence of an attorney. These people should then be taken into custody, and a charge decision should be made within 48 hours. The suspects should be told about the charges in court and asked whether they plead guilty or not in an arraignment. In this case, the charge will be possession with intent to distribute.
Since the drug distributors had a firearm, then their case is more serious than all the others. Because they had five kilos of drugs, mandatory sentencing guidelines require ten-year sentences without parole for 5 kilos of powdered cocaine. Most other drugs like LSD, Heroin and crack cocaine elicit ten-year sentences without parole for less than five kilos; the three should serve those sentences. However, for the person on probation, he or she should be taken to a probation hearing because he violated it. In the hearing, the probation ought to be revoked so that the person can go back to jail and serve his term. This person demonstrated that he or she cannot maintain freedom and should not remain in society. The other individual who was on parole should also be returned to prison. If the person was eligible for a prison term of ten years and had been released after five years, that person should go back and complete the term in addition to serving the mandatory drug sentence.
On the other hand, the person who had been stopped for a traffic violation should receive a lenient judgment if he or she was not a first-time offender. In other words, the person should be acquitted of the charge and be taken through the drug court system where a nonadversarial approach is used. The offender should then be given a drug treatment program that would ensure rehabilitation. Abstinence from the use of drugs should be ascertained through frequent testing. Monitoring of the effectiveness of the program should be done by the end of it.
Works Cited
Carroll v. United States, 267 US 132 (1925).
Davies, Thomas. “Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment.” Michigan Law Review 98.3(1999): 547-750.
Illinois v Gates 462 US 213 (1983).
Miranda v Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Williams, Levy. Seasoned Judgments: the American constitution, rights and history. NY: Transaction publishers, 1995. Print.