Police encounter procedures and legal justification in suspect investigations

Traffic Stop Case

Did Officer Smith have reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop of this vehicle?

As we examine this case and more confrontational moments occur between the officer and the suspect, all events remain in question largely on the basis of this initial question. This is because ultimately, it was revealed by due process that the basic cause for the traffic stop was a suspected broken taillight which was ultimately in proper working order. This denotes that probable cause may not have existed to justify the encounter between the officer and the suspect. That said, 'probable cause' is a higher standard than that required for a routine traffic stop absent the intent for a search of the suspect or vehicle. Here, reasonable suspicion is sufficient, though given the working condition of the taillight, it is not certain that this necessary existed either. According to Tennessee v Brother (2010), a similar case involving a search and seizure which was preempted by a broken taillight offers reason to believe that the officer in this case did not have a legal right to pull the suspect over. According to Baker Associates (2010), in Tennessee v. Brotherton, it was incumbent upon the court to determine "if a police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle based on the fact that the taillight was not in "good condition" because it was projecting a glaring or dazzling light. In this case, the defendant had broken the taillight and attempted to repair it with red repair tape. The intermediate appellate court held that the taillight was in proper working condition in that it provided proper warning and safety measures to other motorists and thus was in 'good condition." (BA, p. 1) Using this as our basis, we may deduce that the officer in question, though acting on a good-faith assumption that a taillight was broken, may not have had cause for 'reasonable suspicion' sufficient to justify the traffic stop. That said, the case does not articulate exactly what conditions caused the officer to mistake a functional taillight for a broken one and further examination may find that while not broken, the taillight was altered sufficiently that 'reasonable suspicion' was present to justify the traffic stop.

2.Was the "pat-down" of the driver legal?

Putting aside the discrepancy over the state of the suspect's taillight, we consider the question of the 'pat-down.' Here, the officer determines to frisk the suspect because her car is consistent with the description of one recently involved in the roadside murder of a fellow officer. It is thus that the officer determines she must, for reasons of her own safety, take this precautionary step. According to the case of Terry v. Ohio, 'reasonable suspicion' is the basic threshold for pat-downs as well. Here, our findings denote that "generally, law enforcement officers will perform frisks at their discretion, regardless of the 'reasonable suspicion' standard established by the Terry ruling. Thus, it is not uncommon for frisks to be conducted for investigatory purposes where no actual evidence of a threat to officer safety exists." (Flex Your Rights, p. 1) However, as the source goes on to indicate, Terry v. Ohio defends the basic assumption that an officer is rarely in violation of Constitutional law for using this frisking measure. Given that the suspect in this case was driving a car which fit the description of one involved in a homicide, sufficient 'reasonable suspicion' existed to allow for the pat-down.

3.Did exigent circumstances exist for Officer Smith to give chase to this vehicle?

In this area of consideration, the case is very straightforward. According to the text by Stuckey et al. (2006), an arrest warrant may be called for in instances where a search and seizure has taken place. However, Stuckey et al. report, "the exception to this warrant requirement is exigent or emergency circumstances. Courts have ruled that fresh or hot pursuit of a suspect as he or she runs into a home does not require a warrant." (p. 81) As the case denotes, the suspect clearly chose to flee the scene even though a pat-down had revealed no weapons or illegal substances.

4.Was the gun in "plain view" and legally obtained?

The case history indicates that, likely as a result of the accident which ended the high speed pursuit, the glove compartment is open and a firearm is visible. As a result, the firearm constitutes evidence that is 'in plain view' and must therefore be considered admissible evidence even absent the standards for a legally warranted search. That said, and as will be addressed in the question hereafter, the standards for a more comprehensive search probably existed even without invocation of the 'in plain view' clause.