NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... ive the officers the right to follow him and pull him over in order to search him. The plain-view doctrine allows law enforcement officers to investigate and search someone they feel may be hiding something illegal. The officers give comments within the case and proceedings that they clearly felt something was hidden within the respondents clothing, this shows that they had the legal right to remove the item.
While it may seem that the respondent was somehow robbed of his Fourth Amendment rights, he was violating the rule of law in a manner that was predominant over this right. It would be un rightful to assume that the law enforcement officers had no legitimate basis for searching the respondent. There obviously had to be some righteousness in their statement because the respondent was holding illegal narcotics when they frisked him. However, from the other point of view, the respondent did not appear to give the officers any reason to believe that they were planning an illegal activity within their plain-view.
The officers claim to have felt something in the respondents pocket but it seems that the respondent did not give them enough reason to follow him in the first place. The officers appear to be negligent in their actions in that they did not use their judgement correctly in deciding whether what they were doing was justified under the Fourth Amendment. The officers pulled over the respondent under false pretenses because they had no proof and no chance to see that they could have had contraband on them prior to pulling them over. There were obvious factors that made them the officers think the respondent was hiding something, however, they are not factors that make their response to the situation constitutional. Officers have the right to frisk, search and seize someone that has plainly shown that they have committed some illegal act. Otherwise, any other action followed for any other reason must be deemed unconstitutional.
It is important to realize the importance of the Constitution and what falls under it. These rules and standards were made to help protect the rights of the people so that there are some restrictions as to what rights we have against law enforcement. Both American citizens and American law enforcement officers need to pay attention to the significance of this document and need to learn and understand what exactly they protect people from. If people were better informed of what rights were protected under the Constitution than law enforcement officers would not be able to get away with most of the things they do. There are loopholes that officers know and use to their advantage that citizens would not know about unless they were involved in a situation. These discrepancies within the system are very common and we need to educate the public and help them to understand so that they do not get stuck in such a situation and then trials like these will not be needed.
I argue that although the officers were correct in assuming that the respondent was committing some illegal offense, there was no evidence in plain view that gave them the correct admissibility to search the respondent. The officers may have had a feeling that something illegal was going on but a feeling is not a legal basis for searching someone. Other cases have shown that the Fourth Amendment has strict guidelines and it is not sufficient to have a feeling about someone and pursue that suspicion. I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court that the stop and frisk of the respondent was valid under Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.
S. 1 (1968) but the seizure of the cocaine was unconstitutional on the basis that there is no plain feel exception. The respondent might have been guilty with the possession of illegal cocaine, nonetheless, certain other illegal actions took place on the side of law enforcement. The seizing of the narcotics was not done properly to the extent of the rules of law. It is unfair to infer that the officers were accurately obtaining the cocaine through legitimate and legal means because they did not use sight to confiscate the drugs but a sense of touch that is presumed to be more imprecise. The first issue that was raised in the case of Minnesota vs. Dickerson was whether or not the Fourth Amendment of the U.
S. Constitution was violated during the frisk of the respondent Timothy Dickerson. Although the police officers had a suspicion about the actions that took place after the respondent left the building prior known for the illegal activity taken place there, it still seems quite difficult to decide whether the officers had the right to follow the respondent into the alley and search his belongings. The respondent did raise the officers curiosities, however, it is still unknown whether their decision violated the liberties of the respondent.
Other cases have relevance to the Fourth Amendment rights granted to citizens and it is necessary to comprehend that discrepancies continue to take place within the justice system with regard to search and seizure. The frisking of an individual is a serious action and must be contemplated by law enforcement before it occurs. The reasons behind search and seizure must be legit and stated within the Constitution or else the evidence obtained can be declared un admissible within a court of law regardless of what it was that may have been found. The second important issue regarding the respondents legal rights is whether the officers were within the rules of law when they decided that feeling a lump in the respondents pocket was equivalent to that of seeing a lump in his pocket. In my opinion, the court should have allowed the submission of the cocaine because it was found, the officers had logical reasons to suspect the respondent, he felt something in his pocket and saw him leave a building that has been consistently disrupted for illegal drugs. Therefore, the respondent was clearly guilty of possession of the cocaine and should have been convicted on all counts.
There is no need to be so incredibly specific within this instance because what they saw with the respondents actions led them to feel and notice narcotics within his clothing. It might be slightly more difficult to believe that the feeling of an object through someones clothing is not as accurate as seeing the object, however, that is not always true. It is unfair to assume that even if they saw a bulge in his pants pocket, that it could have simply been a packet of tissues or something else that looked suspicious. When is the line drawn concerning the reasons to embarrass and frisk someone against their will? The officers had a definite feel by their touch that something was being hidden and they wanted to find what it was because they had seen him act in a very sly and somewhat deviant way through his actions and where they witnessed him leave. The main issue is that plain-view differs from plain sight showing that the officers were unlawful in their actions when they frisked the respondent.
It is now differentiated simply because of this specific case even though other cases have taken place before this one, they were under different circumstances and separate rules of law were the main concern in the court. There are many reasons why someone is pulled over due to suspicions by police officers that arise by what they witness before their very eyes. However, there are rules and laws that need to be followed because law enforcement officers cannot simply take matters into their own hands and decide someones guilt or innocence. The realization that the officers stepped beyond their boundaries is important when deciding whether the respondent should have been guilty under all the rules of law that currently Other previous cases have relevance to Minnesota vs. Dickerson because they have set some of the standards that are presented within the Fourth Amendment and plain-view doctrine. The Fourth Amendment has explicit rules that all supervene and that may not be exceptions unless there is dire need for them.
The exclusionary rule is a different issue altogether and it has separate aspects pertaining to exceptions within certain rules of law. Nevertheless, this specific case has interesting issues concerning legal standards dealing with police or law enforcement misconduct with search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Many cases have dealt with these circumstances and issues and there is no doubt that more will approach the future. Bibliography: BIBLIOGRAPHY Charrow, Veda R. , Erhard, Myra K. , Charrow, Robert P. , Clear and Effective Legal Writing, Second Edition, Little, Brown and Company, 1995.
Criminal Law and Its Processes, Cases and Materials, Sixth Edition, Little Brown and Company, 1995. Findlaw. com. Minnesota vs. Dickerson, No. 91 - 2019. web files / h eyes / ascii -orig/ 91 - 2019 A.
ZO
Free research essays on topics related to: fourth amendment, illegal activity, law enforcement officers, search and seizure, police officers
Research essay sample on Law Enforcement Officers Search And Seizure
