Facts of the case of Fred Watson
The plaintiff for the case was Fred Watson, while the defendant, Eddie Boyd. Fred claimed that on 1st August 2012, while he sat in his car after a basketball game at Forest wood Park, Eddie Boyd, a Ferguson police Department officer, harassed him. Watson got shocked and requested to know the grounds for the harassment. Instead of getting a response, Officer Boyd retaliated against Watson and wrote nine charges that caused him to lose his job and security clearance.
Facts of the case
About the lawsuit filed against Boyd and the city by Watson, the officer approached Watson in his car and shouted at him and commanded him to place his hands on the steering wheel. Boyd asked him if he acknowledged the reason for the confrontation. The Officer’s command and queries struck Watson as strange even though he had not been asked to pull over. Watson was perplexed by the Officer’s conduct and asked why he was being harassed. Boyd shoved this query away and demanded Watson’s social security number, insurance proof, and driving license. Watson asked why the Officer wanted that information as he had committed no felony. Instead, the Officer claimed that Watson might be a pedophile searching for victims at the park. Boyd suggested that he wanted to write Watson a ticket for having his car windows tinted dark. Besides asking why he was being interrogated, Watson conducted himself in a manner that agitated the Officer. Watson agreed to get his driver’s license but failed to give his Social Security number.
Additionally, Watson requested for the officer’s badge number and name, which Boyd declined to give. He later picked his phone and attempted to call 911. When Boyd commanded him to throw his car keys, Watson refused to toss them. Moreover, Watson declined Boyd’s command to search his car.
Boyd called for backup, and three officers arrived at the scene and witnessed Boyd handcuff Watson and drive him to the police station. Watson’s vehicle was towed, and despite not having a search warrant, Boyd searched the suspects’ car. Later on, Watson paid a $700 bond to get out of jail. After being released, Watson found his belongings were disorderly and money amounting to $2000 was missing. The charges filed against Watson were initially seven, including having no driving license even though he had one, driving with no insurance, having an unregistered car, and driving a vehicle with illegally tinted windows. Another accusation raised was that Watson was driving a car without a seat belt even though it was parked. When Watson attempted to file a complaint against Boyd’s conduct, the Officer added to more charges to his charge sheet, claiming that he had failed to comply with the Officer’s order and made a false declaration.
Issue of the case
In this trial, Watson accused Boyd of arresting and initiating charges against him without reasonable cause. The case is based on the fact that Watson had denied the request by the officer to issue his social security number. The case is founded on the accusations that Officer Boyd had violated Fred Watson’s rights. The malicious prosecution of the plaintiff, in this case, had resulted in and a state of confusion as Watson lost his job. The accusation laid against the plaintiff leading to his prosecution was that Watson had packed his car when the officer approached even though he was under no obligation to put on his seat belt. Watson had also provided the officer with a valid driving license even though the officer claimed otherwise in the charge shit. Watson’s windows were also not tinted as claimed by the officer in the charges. The prosecution Watson had caused him emotional distress, loss of his job and the loss of money and belongings when he was arrested. The police officer had no search warrant at the time he searched Watson’s car. The question arising is whether the officer had the right to search the accused’s car without a warrant. Considering that Watson was black and officer Boyd was white, there is theoretically direct evidence of discrimination following how the accused was arrested, the charges laid on him prior and the two consequent charges that followed because Watson had attempted to sue the officer. Watson had been arrested falsely without any valid ground offence
Rule of Law
Following the determination of the case of Carroll v. United States, the court extended the law that automobiles may be searched without a search warrant should the officer identify a probable cause for the search. In the case of Knowles v. Iowa, 525 US 113 (1998), the court provided that the officer may only undertake a terry-type search on the car and any full-blown searches should be under a warrant. The fourth Amendment also provides that vehicles may be searched if the officer establishes a probable course. However, the right of the individual to be safe in his being, house, papers and effects, against an unreasonable search and seizure should not be violated. The officer must also provide an oath stating the exact part of the vehicle to be searched. Missouri state law provides that an officer can stop a passe4nger or a driver for not buckling upon. The law does not, however, provide for the use of a seatbelt when one is packed. The 1974 Privacy Act provides that a federal state or agency requesting an individual to disclose their social security number shall enlighten the individual if the disclosure is mandatory or voluntary (National Conference of State Legislation, 2010). The agency must further provide the legal ground under which the individual must provide the number and the use for which it is required.
Court’s Conclusion
The Case is still in progress
S Dept of Justice investigation of the Ferguson MO Police Department
On September 2014, the Civil Rights Division of US Department of Justice began its investigation on the Ferguson MO police department. The investigation was governed by the 1994 Act of Violent Crime Control and Law enforcement. City officials were interviewed in the inquiry (United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, 2015). The agency spent at least one-hundred days on the investigation, which later revealed a pattern of unlawful conducts buy the officers and within the entire department. The agency carried out an in-depth digging into the cases and the internal files of the department. The local community was engaged in the investigation, and individual civilians interviewed. The investigation further revealed that the Ferguson Police Department is more focused on accumulating revenue instead of providing safety for the locals (United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, 2015). The focus on revenue accumulation has, in turn, interfered with the integrity of the department leading to a system of unlawful acts of policing. The pattern of illegal acts has also been implemented in the municipal court, compromising the court’s authority to follow due procedures when dealing with cases. There is a significant racial bias noted that was dominantly practised in the Ferguson police department. African Americans were more affected by the racial disparities as revealed in the investigation by the Department of Justice.
References
267 U.S.132 (1925) Carroll was a Prohibition-era liquor case, whereas a great number of modern automobile cases involve drugs.
Knowles v. Iowa, 525 US 113 (1998) (invalidating an Iowa statute permitting a full-blown search incident to a traffic citation).
National Conference of State Legislation. (2010). Social Security Number 2010 Legislation
United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. (2015). Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department
No. 4:17-CV-2187 RLW (2019) Watson v. Boyd