The case Arizona vs. Grant occured because an event that happened on August 25, 1999 involving two police officers, and a suspect who was believed to be involved in narcotics activity. The officers first visit to the house where the suspect lived was followed by a second visit later that night because he wasnt there at the initial visit. After their first visit they ran a background check and found causes for the arrest of the subject, Rodney Grant. Upon the second return the subject Rodney Grant was apprehended after pulling into his driveway and walking about ten feet towards the officers. After they placed him in the police vehicle, they searched the suspects car, which was the cause of the Arizona vs Grant case, because of a debate on evidence pulled from the car without reasonable reasons to search it. Although there was cocaine and a weapons in the car, the officers didnt have reasons to prove why the searched it after the suspect had already been apprehended and put into the police vehicle. It is because of this that led to questioning of why the car was searched because Grant was not in the nearby vicinity of the vehicle and therefore no harm to the officers unless he had a weapons in his immediate possession.
This case pertains to us because as we MPs' work the road or the gate, we have to remember the rules both big and small in order to ensure that we follow the neccessary procedures to doing things the right way. This will help us if a case like this ever arises, and will prevent us from getting caught doing the wrong thing and keep every amount of evidence so we can to make sure that any future violaters of the law are rightfully punished for any crimes they may have committed.
I think that this case has changed law enforcement because its helps put a bigger emphasis on what is taught during training, and to ensure that trainees are taught the laws which we must follow when scenarios like this happen in regards to the Fourth Amendment.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document