Bailey v. United States
In this paper I will be discussing the case of Bailey v. United states. First we will be looking to see all the facts of this case to get a clear view of the issue at hand. Then we’ll cover what the issue is for this case, and why it would be an issue in accordance to the Fourth Amendment. I will make a stance in this paper about if I think the issue at hand is or isn’t a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decisions of all the courts will be looked at, and their reasonings. These sort of cases are important to the ever living and breathing document that is the Constitution because cases like these help change, form, and update (so to speak) the rights that we are afforded according to the United States.
On July 28th, 2005 the police of Suffolk County received information via a confidential informant that he had purchased drugs. The drug deal was for the amount of six grams of crack cocaine. During the drug deal the informant described that he had seen a firearm in the apartment. The apartment was separate space of a house located in the basement of 103 Lake Drive in Wyandanch, New York. The information gave further details as such. The exact description of the person he had purchased the guns from; “[a] heavy set black male with short named known as Polo.” (justice.org, page 2) The informant also gave the exact details of the type and description of the gun that he had seen in the apartment which was a .380-caliber handgun.
On the same day the police went to the judge on call to obtain a warrant. After proving the credibility of the informant they were able to obtain a “no-knock” warrant. A “no-knock” warrant is given when there is an idea that the police going to execute a warrant might be harmed or if there is a chance that the evidence expected to be collected could be destroyed. The search warrant specified the basement apartment as the location to be searched, and items to be retrieved were the handgun and any ammunition to go along with it. A single Detective was given the task of watching the apartment while the warrant was being obtained to ensure that the officers that were going to execute the warrant would know if any one was in the apartment, and if so how many. The affiant then went to the scene while the search unit got ready to execute the warrant. While they were watching the house the two of them witnessed two individuals that could meet the description of the the informants description of Polo exit from the basement apartment and get into a car. The two officers followed the car for a few blocks before pulling over the vehicle. After the car was stopped the officers asked the two occupants to step out of the vehicle and proceeded to pat them down. After the two identified themselves, the officers confirmed the driver was the Polo, and the occupant was a friend he was driving home. During the stop the officer searched the pockets and found a set of keys in Polo’s front pocket. Polo explained the keys were to his apartment. The officer then handcuffed both men. When Polo asked why he was being handcuffed the police office stated that he was being ‘detained’ not arrested incident to the search warrant of the apartment. The officer put the two men into a patrol car that was called in and they were driven to the apartment. The second surveillance officer drove Polo’s car back to the apartment while the first drove the undercover car. By the time they all reached the apartment again the search unit had already entered the home, executing the warrant. A gun and drugs were in plain view when they had entered the apartment. It was then that the Polo and Middleton were arrested. The keys that were found in the front pocket were also seized incident to his arrest along with “ two addition guns outside the one in plain view, many rounds of ammunition, a bullet proof vest, 40 grams of crack cocaine,39 grams of powder cocaine, drug paraphernalia,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document