RumseyH_Final Exam

.docx

School

SUNY Canton *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

330

Subject

Chemistry

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

3

Uploaded by JudgeTitaniumPenguin28 on coursehero.com

July 5, 2023 CH 13 A2 LEST 330 To: Legal Research From: Haley S. Rumsey, Paralegal RE: Search and Seizure Date: July 5, 2023 Facts A college student, Joshua accepted a ride with two acquaintances he didn’t know. The vehicle Joshua was riding in was pulled over, and the officer claimed that the window tint on his car was too dark. The office used a tint meter and discovered that the tint complied with Florida statutes. The Officer then wished them a nice day and started to walk away. He then returned to the window and asked Mike, the driver, if he would mind if the officer searched the car and all its containers. Mike said, “I guess not.” The students had a conversation in the back of the patrol car where remarks were made about whether it was a good idea to have allowed the officer to search the vehicle. Their conversation was being recorded unknowingly to the students. The officer found 300 grams of hail and believed it was packaged for distribution. The officer ran the names of all three students. When it came back, there was a warrant out for the two students for cocaine distribution. All three students were arrested for the drugs, while Joshua was unaware of the drugs in the car, nor did anything come back for him when the officer ran his name. Issues 1. Was the search of Mike Cooper’s Car constitutional? 2. Can the recording in the back of the patrol car be suppressed? 3. Did the officer have probable cause to arrest Joshua Smeek? Answers 1. Yes, the window tinting on Mike’s car was questionable to the officer. The officer was incorrect in thinking the tint was too dark after testing, resulting in a minor error. 2. No, the court will not suppress the conversations made in the back of the patrol car under 18 U.S. Code § 2510; there is a right to recording with the equipment used by law enforcement. 3. Yes, with the recording, the officer has probable cause to arrest Smeek. Reasoning 1. A police officer must have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to initiate a traffic stop under the fourth amendment. In the US v. Chanthasouxat case, the court found
July 5, 2023 CH 13 A2 LEST 330 that the officer’s misinterpretation was reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop. The tinted windows on Cooper’s car caused the traffic stop due to Florida’s tint laws. Based on the lighting conditions at the time, the officer could have made a mistake of fact. 2. In both the Smeeks and Chanthasouxat cases, the individuals were placed in the patrol car once verbal permission was given for the officer to search the car. Once in the vehicle, the defendants had no right to privacy under 18 U.S. Code § 2510 with the equipment used daily by officers. Due to the ruling that Chanthasouxat stop was illegal, all other evidence was dismissed. Smeeks was a lawful stop, and everything obtained can be used as evidence. 3. In the case of Brendlin v. California, the court defined his seizure as an example of a reasonable person, meaning no reasonable person would have felt free to go. The court ruled that Brendlin was illegally detained, and all evidence became inadmissible. Under the Fourth Amendment, Smeek had no interest or knowledge of the items in the vehicle. His rights were not violated, which could be considered illegally detained while the search was underway. Separate Reasoning and Conclusion 1. A mistake of fact is excusable under the Fourth Amendment. The officer had probable cause to stop the vehicle making the stop constitutional. 2. Since the traffic stop was constitutional and did not violate any rights of the Fourth Amendment, the recording would not be suppressed. 3. As the recording would not be suppressed and the officer could use the recordings as evidence, this gives reasonable suspicion of Smeek’s involvement. Reference: Bast, C. M., & Hawkins, M. (2013). Foundations of legal research and writing (Fifth). Delmar Cengage Learning. Findlaw's United States Eleventh Circuit case and opinions. United States v. Chanthasouxat, 342 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2003) Findlaw. (n.d.). Retrieved July 5, 2023, from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1292983.html. Legal Information Institute. (2007, June 18). Brendlin v. California Legal Information Institute. Retrieved July 5, 2023, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06- 8120.ZS.html. Legal Information Institute. (n.d.).18 U.S. Code § 2510 - definitions. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved July 5, 2023, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2510
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help