Arrest and Stop under the Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment seizures are categorized into two: investigative stops requiring reasonable suspicion, and arrests requiring probable cause (p. 226). Police officers are not authorized to cause detention of any person for purposes of investigation unless there is probable cause. The law allows an officer who makes an investigatory stop to scan the interior of the car for weapons (p. 227). An individual fleeing from a law enforcement officer without provocation creates reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop. The Fourth Amendment will not be in violation where an officer stops an automobile for an existing traffic offence and eventually searches for drugs. After the police officer stops a car, he may order the driver and passengers to come out. This is intended for the safety of the officer. Chasing a car does not amount to seizure until the car is stopped (p. 227). Any property thrown away before the catch is abandoned and is not protected under the Fourth Amendment.
In the case scenario, the car is moving in the opposite direction at a very high speed. There is no provocation for the driver to move at such high speed. This, therefore, establishes reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop. I will make a visual scan in the interior of the car to ascertain if there are any weapons. Peters v. New York (1968) ruled that an officer can establish probable cause by observing a crime in progress. The throwing of an object out of the window and the smell of alcohol and possibly marijuana from the passengers establishes a probable cause for a search. I will ask the driver and the passengers to exit the car for safety purposes before conducting the search for drugs. In case drugs will be found in the car after the search, I will apply Maryland v. Pringle (2003). If none of the three individuals will admit to owning the drugs, all of them will be arrested. The court has held that there is often a common enterprise between car passengers and the driver, and there is a possibility that the driver is also involved in drugs (p. 181).
References
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003).
Peters v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968).
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]