appellate paper

685 Words2 Pages
Under the Fourth Amendment, the officer invaded Mr. Dansby’s privacy by conducting a stop for a completed misdemeanor. The Fourth Amendment is meant to regulate “seizures” of persons. U.S. Const. Amend IV. The Court in Mendenhall characterized a seizure occurs when “a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980). Additionally, in Chestnut, the Court held that seizure occurs “when a reasonable person is not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.” Michigan v. Chestnut, 486 U.S. 567, 569 (1988). In Prouse, a patrolman in a police cruiser conducted an investigatory stop to check the driving license of the operator and car registration. United States v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 650 (1979). During the stop, the patrolman saw marijuana in plain view. Id. at 650. Subsequently, the defendant was arrested for illegal possession of a controlled substance. Id. The Court held that stopping the automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver license violated the defendant’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id. at 673. The Court reasoned that an ordinary traffic stop interferes with the “defendant’s freedom of movement, is inconvenient, time consuming, and creates “substantial anxiety”.” Prouse, 440 U.S. at 657. Similarly, in United States v. Jegede, 294 F.Supp.2d 704 (2003), an officer received a call that provided the description of a naked male assaulting a woman. Id. at 705. Solely, on the basis of this call, the police officer conducted an investigatory stop. Id. During the stop, the officer detected an alcohol odor, and therefore charged the defendant for driving under the influence. Id. at 706. The court held: I... ... middle of paper ... ... in conducting the stop, the officer in the present case failed to conduct a stop that justified the intrusion. (R. at 9.) Furthermore, unlike the officer in City of Devils, the officer in the present case did not have enough experience as he was only a detective in the Special Crimes Unit for only five years. (R. at 9.) Consequently, under the Fourth Amendment, Mr. Dansby was a victim of an unreasonable search and seizure. The officer trampled on Mr. Dansby’s right of privacy when he conducted the investigatory stop. To stay consistent with the holding in Grigg, the officer failed to explore a “least intrusive” alternative in choosing the time and circumstances of the stop. Thus, this Court should follow Prouse, and conclude that when the officer interfered with Mr. Dansby’s freedom of movement, he violated Mr. Dansby’s right of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
Open Document