appellate paper

1025 Words5 Pages
On April 2, 2013, Mr. Daniel Dansby was arrested for the possession of a controlled substance. (R at 13.) The evidence was obtained during an investigatory stop conducted by an officer for a completed misdemeanor. (R. at 9.) Mr. Dansby appeals the judgment of the district court denying the suppression of the evidence, claiming the search was unconstitutional. (R. at 3.) The appellant, Mr. Dansby, was denied his Fourth Amendment rights. Under the Fourth Amendment, Mr. Dansby had “[t]he right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures…” U.S. Const. Amend IV. Under the present circumstances, the search was in fact, unconstitutional. The officer chased Mr. Dansby’s car to investigate the misdemeanor of computer trespass. The officer’s behavior was precipitated by a report from an unreliable source, Vicki Vette, Mr. Dansby’s ex-girlfriend. After catching up to Mr. Dansby and observing his behavior of ducking down under the seat, the officer drew his service revolver as he commanded Mr. Dansby to exit the car while holding his hands up. (R. at 12.) When Mr. Dansby got out of the car, the officer had Mr. Dansby place his hand on the car’s hood as he frisked Mr. Dansby for weapons. (R. at 12.) In the incident just described, Mr. Dansby was subjected to the greatest intrusion on his personal privacy. Thus, the evidence seized from him should have been suppressed. Therefore, this Court should reverse the district court’s decision as the evidence was obtained in the violation of the Fourth Amendment. A. This Court should adopt a per se bar standard that the government may not authorize an investigatory stop for a completed misdemeanor. Mr. Dansby’s constitutional rights were violated when the officer conducted an invest... ... middle of paper ... ...t necessary, as it does not serve the purpose of the probable cause warrant standard established under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 1655. By prohibiting investigatory searches and seizures for a completed, nonviolent misdemeanor, this Court will be able to deter the police misconduct. However, if this Court chooses to follow the majority rule, making it reasonable to conduct a stop for a completed misdemeanor, this Court will create a slippery slope, giving the police too much authority. If the police is handed too much authority, then the police may abuse its power by taking advantage of innocent citizens. Further, the police may rely on their prejudicial nature to conduct an investigatory stop for a completed misdemeanor. Therefore, in order to guard the constitution created by our Founding Fathers, this Court should adopt a per se bar for completed misdemeanors.

More about appellate paper

Open Document