Cjus 420 db forum 3 2 replies due 9/14/2020

CAN YOU DO THIS FOR ME DUE 9/14/2020

you are required to reply to 2 other classmates’ threads. Each reply must be a minimum of 100 words and must cite at least 2 academic sources. One source has to be biblical.. Acceptable sources include the textbook, peer-reviewed journal articles, government sources/websites, and professional association websites. In addition to academic support, students must apply a Chrisitian worldview perspective and integrate Biblical scripture support for all posts. 

Responding to a classmate’s post requires both the addition of new ideas and analysis. A particular point made by the classmate must be addressed and built upon by your analysis in order to move the conversation forward. Thus, the response post is a rigorous assignment that requires you to build upon initial posts to develop deeper and more thorough discussion of the ideas introduced in the initial posts. As such, reply posts that merely affirm, restate or unprofessionally quarrel with the previous post(s) and fail to make a valuable, substantive contribution to the discussion will receive appropriate point deductions.

 replies are due by 10:59 p.m. (CST) on Monday of the same modules/weeks  

1st reply

 Robert Choyce Is it Reasonable??

          Before an officer switches on their overhead lights to initiate a traffic stop several decisions have to be made because they must operate within Constitutional law (Fourth Amendment), that is, they have to have articulable reasonable suspicion that a crime is, was, or about to be committed.  A mistake many officers make is they confuse probable cause with reasonable suspicion and will not stop vehicles unless they have the higher form of probable cause which is needed to effect an arrest or obtain a search warrant.  Many refer to the Terry stop when determining reasonableness, but the most important thing is to be able to articulate the circumstances that led to the stop (Hess et al., 2017).  For example, Officers receive lookouts (BOLOs) from citizens who call in and provide information on vehicles they believe are DUI or driving erratically, and many times they are located; however, it is always important for the officer to establish their own reasonable suspicion for the stop.  This is because of the Florida v. J.L. (2000) ruling which concluded that an anonymous tip was not enough to make a stop on face value.  Officers have to always keep reasonableness in their minds in terms of actions as scripture maintains, “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” (Leviticus 19:15, ESV).

            Pretextual stops are used frequently in criminal investigations to stop a suspect while traveling in a vehicle where they are most vulnerable.  The courts decided this was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment in the landmark case Whren v. United States (1996).  Imagine an officer received some information that 18-year-old John was selling marijuana from his residence and the officer knows that vehicle search and seizure laws have a warrantless exception (Carrol doctrine).  The officer observes John leave his residence and low and behold he has a malfunctioning headlight and a brake light out.  Because John is in violation of the law, a stop is initiated.  The officer now sees a baggy with suspected marijuana next to a glass pipe in plain-site (Katz v. United States, 1967) giving them probable cause to search the vehicle without a warrant.  Some highway interdiction teams will have a K-9 team available to conduct an exterior sweep of the vehicle and if the K-9 has a positive response, a warrantless search is valid.  The only caveat is as long as the subject was not held any longer than normally required to conduct an investigation into the reason for the stop, (e.g. run driver’s license, registration check, and write a citation) (Hess et al., 2017).  Several other options for a warrantless search are when consent is given by the vehicle’s operator or owner and when towing the vehicle.  You would be amazed how many people will give consent who are carrying drugs or weapons.  Remember, officers have to always consider what is reasonable.  I’ve seen in the past where these simple investigation tools can lead to search warrants of residences recovering drugs and weapons that lead to federal indictments.      

            It is important to understand that search and seizure law is always evolving and officers have to keep up with the most recent court decisions.  Some situations are cut and dry and others require careful consideration before proceeding.  For example, an officer observes a subject loitering in a Walmart parking lot sitting inside a vehicle in the back corner.  The officer observes them for 20 more minutes and thinks its odd that they haven’t gone inside to shop (drug deal, waiting on a conspirator to steal, or just meeting another party?).  The officer walks up and engages the subject in a consensual encounter and smells marijuana coming from the vehicle.  The subject is detained and he and the vehicle are searched.  The search of the vehicle and the person reveal that no contraband has been found.  Can the officer strip search the subject to see if the drugs are hidden in their groin?  The courts concluded in Sloley v. VanBramer (2d Cir. 2019) that a strip search (a cavity search is more thorough) can only be done once the individual is arrested and there is reasonable suspicion to believe they have contraband or a weapon hidden (Wallentine, 2019).  Would it be considered by the courts to be reasonable to strip search a subject over the smell of marijuana in a Walmart parking lot?  Many have and would, but I would air on the side of caution and move them along.     

References

Carroll v. United States – 267 U.S. 132 (1925)

Florida v. J.L. – 529 US 266, 120S. Ct. 1375 (2000)

Hess, K., Orthmann, C., & Cho, H. (2017). Criminal Investigation (11th edition). Cengage

Katz v. United States – 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Sloley v. VanBramer – No. 16-4213 (2d Cir. 2019)

Terry v. Ohio – 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

Wallentine, K. (2019, December 18). Reasonable Suspicion Required to Conduct a Visual Body Cavity Search. Lexipol. https://www.lexipol.com/resources/blog/reasonable-suspicion-required-to-conduct-a-visual-body-cavity-search/#:~:text=%E2%80%9C(1)%20a%20’strip,body%20cavity%20search’%20occurs%20when

Whren v. United States – 517 US 806 (1996)

2nd reply

 Michael Carter DB 3- Vehicle Stops and Searches

Officers have to keep in mind that a vehicle stop is “a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore, must generally be supported by reasonable suspicion and wrongdoing.” (Cho et. al., 2017) This is an important concept because it helps guide officers when conducting  vehicle stops ( this legal requirement must be met) in order for the stop itself to be lawful.  Although not as high of a legal standard when compared to Probable Cause, reasonable suspicion is the entry level of police officer suspicion in the investigative process as they began to intrude on otherwise free people.

Once officers have determined that sufficient cause to stop a vehicle has been established, based on the facts or “the totality of the circumstances” the officer has some additional authority that may become helpful in the course of their investigation. For example, an officer may order passengers out of  a vehicle, or order them to remain inside of a vehicle. Probable cause that a crime has occurred may be developed, granting the officer additional authority to arrest and search the driver and passengers  dependent upon the facts as they develop specifically. Meaning for example, if an officer  stops a vehicle for a traffic offense (running a stop sign) and while interviewing the driver smells marijuana, the driver and occupants may be seized.  The probable cause that marijuana is in the vehicle will allow the vehicle exception to the warrant requirement to kick-in and authorize a search of the vehicle without said warrant.

This concept was established in “Carroll v. United States (1925)” case. Which affirmed  that automobiles may be searched without a warrant if, (1) there is probable cause for the search, and (2) the vehicle would be gone before a search warrant could be obtained. (Cho et. al., 2017) Of course, this is not the case if the crime being investigated in the same scenario was for driving on a revoked license instead of marijuana possession. This would change the scope of the officers justification for searching the entire vehicle and passengers since no evidence of driving on a revoked license could reasonably be located during that search. 

Officers conducting stops and searches of private citizens have to be mindful of the great responsibility officers have to protect the rights of all people, even those who may have violated the law. The Christian world view requires a reflection of Exodus 20:16 (ESV) which states: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” 

References 

Cho, H. Hess, K., Orthman, C. (2017) Criminal Investigations (2013)

Bible Gateway, https//: www.biblegateway.com