Benson Liu Brendlin v California California- there was no violation of the fourth amendment, Brendlin can be arrested Brendlin was not seized until the cop ordered him out of the car and arrested him A passenger in a car is not in control of the car, and if the cop pulled them over for driving, it’s not the passenger's problem. The show of authority was towards the driver, but when the vehicle was pulled over the officer directed his interest to the passenger and changes things The driver was seized when the officer turned on the flashing lights, but Brendlin was always free to leave. The flashing lights were directed at the driver, the officer never ordered Brendlin to do anything. Just because the officer approached the vehicle doesn’t mean Brendlin was seized. …show more content…
Although the officers stopped the car without reasonable suspicion, the evidence seized was not the fruit of an unlawful seizure because Brendlin was not seized when the car was stopped. Brendlin was seized when they discovered he was a parole violator, which is a lawful arrest. Brendlin had no way to signal submission when the car was moving but when it stopped moving he could submit by staying inside. Brendlin was spotted opening and closing the car door, suggesting Brendlin was going to leave. There were moments where the officer did not have authority to act as he did, but once he had the knowledge, the arrest and search were proper. The parole violator shouldn’t even be in the car because he should be in prison behind bars. We are putting too much emphasis on “stopping the car” then “lawfully
The issue that this case raises, is whether or not the officers had the right to search the car of a person who they just arrested, while the person is handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car?
His Honour held that at the time of driving, the low risk of coming across an object on the road that ultimately led the respondent to momentarily take his eyes off the road was not a breach of the respondent’s duty of care and was the type of behaviour that any normal driver was likely to carry out.
Thus, though the police initial intent was in violation of traffic rules, questions had to arise when they apprehended Whren and Brown on other drug-related charges an otherwise violation of the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment would prohibit against unreasonable seizure unless the police were motivated by the need to enforce the law. Indeed, the court still had to try and prove whether the police conduct deviated from the standard police practices. Lastly, it was left to the court to show whether the police had the right to arrest the two men on drug-related charges rather than the traffic violation (Whren v United States,
If a police officer fails to advise a suspect of their rights, they may still arrest the individual.
1. The womens car was parked nearby, and sheriffs deputies asked to see the owners drivers license.
While on patrol I initiated a traffic stop on the listed vehicle for not having a tag. The stop was conducted on County Road 3304, just off of US HWY 231 South. On my initial approach I made contact with driver, Martin, and passenger Ray Jordan. As I informed Martin for the stop, I observed that she was very nervous and would not make eye contact with me. She also failed to maintain her same story when asked about not having a tag, as well as where she was driving to. Due to her behavior and nervousness, I asked Martin for consent to search her vehicle. Martin gave consent. She and Jordan were then directed out and detained so a search of the vehicle could be conducted.
Police officers often encounter situations where the decision to use discretion challenges the way and the type of job that officers would normally conduct. Each day an officer is on the job, discretion when it comes to job duties appears, sometimes without any warning. Officers constantly struggle with the appearance of discretion, and often times do not know how to handle the situation when it does appear. Discretion may take many different forms in the job duties, but it always involves the officer letting a crime “slide,” rather than questioning every suspicious person. Letting a crime “slide,” for certain offenders, is of great concern for the administrators of police departments, because there is potential for ethical issues to surface later on. This essay will examine police discretion, factors that influence discretion, whether exercising discretion is appropriate, and the concerns that administrators have when it comes to police using discretion in the field.
Police Officers Often Misuse and Overuse their Powers when it comes to Conducting Searches on Persons or Property
Law enforcement officers are known to “hunt for property or communications believed to be evidence of crime, and the act of taking possession of this property,” also known as conducting a search and seizure. It is a necessary exercise in the ongoing pursuit of criminals. Search and seizures are used to produce evidence for the prosecution of alleged criminals. Protecting citizens from arbitrary searches, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is our right to limit and deny any unreasonable search and seizure. More often than not, police officers tend to take advantage of their authority by the use of coercion. Although it is unlawful, most citizens do not know what police officers can and cannot do in respect of their human rights.
When the officers stopped the driver, they should have first completed a visual search of the vehicle and surroundings to determine if there was a threat to public safety. This would help them get a feel for how they wished to proceed with the stop. Then they should have interviewed the driver to understand why she was not using a hands-free cellular device. While there is no audio in the video footage, it does not appear the officers involved spent much time speaking with the driver before arresting her. It is possible that the driver had mitigation for not using a hands-free device, such as, taking an emergency call. Further, it is not clear if the driver exited her vehicle on her own violation or by instruction of the officers involved. If she was advised to exit her vehicle by the officers involved, then it is concerning that the officers did not take time to organize the evidence. From the video footage it does not appear that the officers had taken her license/registration back to their patrol car to run her information before proceeding with an arrest. If she did voluntarily leave her vehicle without being instructed to do so, then her actions may have justified her being arrested. However, it is clear the level of force that was used during the arrest was not warranted, especially after she was
Was the intrusion based on a lawful objective, such as a valid arrest, detention, search, frisk, community warden guardian of mentally ill, defense of an officer or a citizen, or to prevent escape? If these answer yes then an officer may have legal ability to use the levels of force listed below to apprehend the suspect. Another list of things to consider when determining if it was a lawful use of force is; was the use of force relative to the person’s confrontation? Was there a crucial need to terminate the condition? Even though there is no duty to retreat, could the officer have used lesser force and still safely accomplish the lawful objective? These are the questions that the jury need to answer to determine if they should side with or against the officer in any court case brought to them that deals with such a controversial topic as this.
In the video, the man is seen stepping out of his car as the officer told him to do, but when the officer tells the man to get his license and he reaches into the car to grab it, he is shot. The officer is heard telling the man to “put his hands up and get out of the car.” When the man was shot, he had his hands in the air, with his wallet in hand. While the officer had the right to defend himself against a potential threat, it was extremely unnecessary to shoot at the man. Thankfully, the man was not killed in the shooting, but the man’s lawyer stated that his client was not unhandcuffed until an officer remembered that he did not have his handcuffs and went to the hospital to retrieve them.
They were of course stopped and police, assuming they were drug dealers, used a narcotics-trained police dog to search the car. The young men were then taken to jail and held until police were convinced that their car was clean of any contraband. To justify their ill treatment of the young men police issued a “warning” stating that the windshield was obstructed (because of a piece of string that was hanging down from the rearview mirror). Then, when the young men questioned the officer about the stop, he told them it was because they were black, with a nice car, driving through a high drug trafficking area (Rudovsky, 2001). Russell L. Jones states in his article, A More Perfect Nation: Ending Racial Profiling (Jones,
As we cruised around the community, he pointed out countless minor traffic violations, both moving and non-moving, but opted not to make any stops. At this point he stated his main concern was to spot any impaired drivers and get them off the road. Eventually, as we came up behind an older civic (the Civic had a broken brake light) on Centreville Road, the officer stated that he detected the scent of marijuana coming from the Civic. The driver of the Civic noticed Crutchman’s police cruiser behind him and dropped his speed to 5 mph under the posted limit. Officer Crutchman began tailing the vehicle which immediately turned off on the next available road. We proceeded to follow the Civic for a couple of miles. I could tell that Officer Crutchman wanted to make the stop, and I inquired why he hadn’t done so already on account of the Civic’s faulty brake light. He responded that he is cautious about making such stops because he does not want a “new law named after him” on account of the controversy surrounding pretextual stops. It is possible that this careful attitude has developed as a result of the rising public outcry against police and
Under the 4th Amendment everyone is protected against unreasonable searches and a warrant must be required to perform a search. In this case none of that was present so the guy being let go was the right decision even if he had illegal drugs on him. A cop knows their protocol and knows it must always be followed so it was the cops fault for not doing so.