Suppression of Evidence and Search and Seizure

Suppression of Evidence and Search and Seizure

 Evidence plays a critical role in determining the innocence or guilt of an individual in the case they are brought before a court of law. Thus, the process in which a legal officer obtains the evidence is equally important. In situations where the evidence is obtained through illegal means, then it could be inadmissible before the law. Criminals may be set free and given the mandate to continue with their criminal activities when the evidence that could place them behind doors is not collected in the required way. For instance, an individual could file for a specific case to be dismissed when the items collected during a search process do not appear on the warrant granted by a prosecutor.

In the case study, John Smith was driving at 3 a.m in the city of Carlsbad when he was stopped by a traffic officer on the basis of something obstructing the driver who was moving at an estimated speed of between 31 to 33mph. When Smith was asked to pull over, the officer said he was stopping him, for he perceived something on the windshield which could obstruct the vision of the driver. The reason for the officer stopping Smith was valid, given he was driving at a lower speed recommended by the state at 35 mph. The officer could have been right to perceive that whatever was on the windshield made it difficult for the driver to have a clear view of the road.

However, when the officer requested to search the vehicle, he did not inform the driver to remove whatever was hanging from the windshield and which could cause obstruction. The suspected object was a disabled person placard measuring 5 inches by 3 inches. It was hanging from an elastic strap from the base of the mirror. The placard was necessary for the driver Smith was suffering from COPD. Thus, the officer was wrong to perceive that it could obstruct the driver’s vision. Seeing that he was wrong, the officer informed Mr. Smith that he was going to search his vehicle but lacked a specific reason for doing so. When asked what he was looking for, the officer said he performs motor searches as a matter of course. He adds that it was within his responsibilities to search vehicles (Henkin, 2017). Such a statement from the officer showed that he did not know what to look for and hence decided to search the vehicle without probable cause. The existence of a disabled person placard on the windshield does not serve as a cause for a search as it did not indicate whether the owner of the vehicle was concealing something.

Therefore, the handgun found by the officer concealed under the front seat was illegal and hence subject to suppression in a court case. The search was illegal, for the officer failed to give the reason for him searching. Besides, he had stated on the onset that he was stopping Smith, for he perceived an object hanging on the windshield. Thus, the object hanging was not a handgun as the officer had thought he would find. On the other hand, the arrest was legal due to the presence of a concealed gun in the car. The officer was justified to arrest John Smith and bring him in for questioning and further investigations regarding the gun. However, the fact that he stopped the driver based on a different probable cause, then the evidence might be subject to a motion to suppress.

For a motor officer to pull over a motorist and proceed with searching the vehicle, then he must have a probable cause for doing so. In the case of the traffic officer who stopped Smith, he lacked probable cause to carry out the search of the entire vehicle. However, regarding the presence of a passenger in the car who turns out to carry out questionable escort business, then it can be stated that the officer used one illegal search as a pretense to arrest the woman under suspicion. Such is unlawful for it was unreasonable for there were no signs of criminal activity or the presence of dangerous arms.

According to the California Penal Code 1538.5, a defendant can file for a motion to suppress evidence during the preliminary hearing or at the pretrial hearing. A motion to suppress evidence can be filed when the police officers obtained the evidence through unreasonable search, unlawful detention, or arrest. When one is pulled over for an invalid reason, then all the evidence gathered during that period would be suppressed (Jackson, 2016). The Fourth Amendment of the constitution provides for the rights of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Thus, warrants help in protecting the rights of the people as they determine when and how the searches should be carried out. Hence, when the court rules in favor of the defendant, then the prosecutor does not have the right to introduce the said evidence during the trial. In situations where all the evidence was obtained illegally, the risk of the case being dismissed is high. The prosecutor will thus be forced to arrive at a plea bargain with the defendant or file a new case with legally obtained evidence.

The motor officer in the John Smith case conducted an unreasonable search that led to the seizure of the handgun from the car. In the beginning, he pulled over the driver stating that an object hanging on the windshield of the vehicle was perhaps obstructing his vision of the road. However, on realizing it was a disabled person placard, the officer goes on to search the entire vehicle stating it was his right to search the motor. The handgun was thus obtained after the unreasonable search of Smith’s vehicle. Despite the ballistic results revealing that the same gun could have been used to commit the murder of Rhoda Dendrum, a motion to suppress the evidence could be successful (Hawkins, 2016). The defendant could argue that Smith was pulled over for a perceived object on the windshield instead of a suspicion of a dangerous arm in the vehicle.

On the other hand, the prosecution could argue that the evidence is admissible for both the occupants of the vehicle know and have come in contact with the deceased. They could also argue that the presence of Ms. Gallagher in the car raised suspicion due to her doubtful escort service. Such arguments from the prosecution are compelling and could be truthful. The only issue is that the officer failed to prove probable cause for the search when asked by John Smith. The constitution provides people with rights that protect them against unlawful searches and seizures (Hawkins, 2016). Thus, the police officer could have stated from the beginning that a certain object or activity raised suspicion hence the basis for his search of the vehicle. Thus, the motion to suppress will succeed, for the evidence was gathered illegally by the officer.

In conclusion, search and seizure of evidence for court proceedings are a sensitive area that all officers ought to follow the laid down guidelines for completing the procedure. Many criminals may go scot-free based on inadmissible evidence.

References

Hawkins, D. (2016). Motion to Suppress-Warrantless Arrest. Wisconsin Law Journal.

Henkin, L. (2017). Search And Seizure.

Jackson, V. C. (2016). Translating rights across centuries: US constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures in a transnational era. In Constitutionalism Across Borders in the Struggle Against Terrorism. Edward Elgar Publishing.