Hypothetical Cases: Fourth Amendment
The stop is valid because of reasonable suspicion that refers to a belief that a crime is in progress or has occurred. Omar looks suspicious because of the use of heavy clothing on a warm night. For example, in the 1968 case of Terry vs. Ohio an agent conducted a limited pat-down search on suspects. Based on stop and frisk the detective Martin McFadden observed two men, John Terry and Richard Chilton, walking back and forward along an identical route. They were joined by a third man, Katz, who left after a brief conversation. McFadden followed terry and Chilton and saw them rejoin with Katz a couple of blocks away. The officer approached them and asked their names. He patted down the individuals finding two weapons. Terry and Chilton were charged with carrying concealed weapons.
The police action is right based on the 1983 case of United States vs. Place, that law enforcement agents may temporarily detain luggage on the basis of a suspicion amounting less than probable cause that the luggage contains narcotics or weapons. This case was based on a situation that occurred in the Miami airport. The officers approached him in his way to the gate and asked him for identification. The agent discovered that Place had no outstanding warrants. Then they asked to search Place’s luggage, but Place refused to allow the agents to do so. They took the luggage into a federal judge to obtain a warrant to search. Place’s luggage was taken and allowed a train narcotics detections dog to perform a sniff test. They discovered over a kilogram of cocaine.
It’s valid because the court has ruled that if reasonable suspicion exists to believe that a motor vehicle contraband or any other types of criminal evidence, a warrantless search by the police is permitted, including a search of closed containers in a vehicle. The 1925 case of Carroll vs. United States was based on a stop that an officer made due to a reasonable...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document