Primary Statement and Statement of Issues - Paper Example

Primary Statement

Ms. Green, the defendant, was arrested on charges of drug possession which were based on evidence which was attained illegally. The phone used to call the defendant had been acquired wrongfully without the consent of the owner as well as without a legal warrant of access. The defendant was arrested by Trooper Martin who was illegally undercover with no legal authorization. The defendant hence claims that the evidence in the case be suppressed since the process used to acquire the evidence was illegally applied. The defendant demands the drop of all the evidence on them pertaining the case since none of it was acquired legally. The fourth amendment protects the people from unlawful searched and seizure hence placing Trooper Martin under the reach of the law. The cut has the mandate to protect the law despite the legal implications. Ms. Green's request is aligned with the constitutional requirement which demands the court to protect the people by upholding the law.

Statement of Issues

(The Statement of the Issues presents the legal question or questions to be addressed and resolved)

Did Trooper Martin violate Mr. Jones constitutional right against unreasonable search or seizure by not allowing him to drive from the parking lot and ordering him to exit the car which gave the Trooper the opportunity to smell the odor of burnt marijuana, see the bong, confiscate the cell phone Mr. Jones was holding, and question him? Suggested Answer: Yes

The general rule is that an officer cannot significantly detain or arrest without probable cause to believe the person committed or is committing a crime.

In this case, there was no probable cause to believe that a crime was committed or was to be committed. After Mr. Jones responded he confirmed he was in a good position communicate and express himself and that he was leaving the parking lot but Trooper Martin went ahead and continued intimidating Mr. Jones. This lead to the chain of event, these include him being asked to step out of the car for no valid reason. These events at the parking lot ended up with the arrest of Mr. Jones. After confirmation that Mr. Jones was not in any bad shape which was affirmed by his response a requirement by the law Trooper Martin was expected to confirm this as he did but he went ahead and abused his power by unlawfully searching Mr. Jones and seizing his mobile phone. As per the Fourth Amendment, it protects one from unreasonable search and seizure unless the police officer has probable cause. There has been no probable cause so far from the incident report hence Trooper Martin had no reason n to enter into Mr. Jones car leave alone conduct a search. This is seen done by the officer where after Mr. Jones opens his door the officer searches his car and seizure a number of things from the car which he, later on, uses as evidence. The use of wrongly accessed evidence is unlawful. The officer goes on to confiscate Mr. Jones phone and powers it on with no legal backgrounds and goes to the extent of retrieving information from the phone without the owners consent or any legal warrant. The officer makes calls from Mr. Jones Phone and impersonates him which is illegal. It is wrong for a person to impersonate another person without their consent of a legal approval. Trooper Martin had the option to follow the right channels and get a legal search warrant but failed to do so. The office was required by the law to get legal approval to conduct the search as well as seize Mr. Jones private possessions. From the information, the offer used intimidation to get information from Mr. Jones and misuses of power to confiscate the evidence from Mr. Jones. A police officer is restricted from unreasonable search and seizure due to our Fourth Amendment. This means police cannot seize or search you, your car or belongings without a warrant unless an exception applies. Such as, the consensual or voluntary encounter, this involves the police walking up to citizens on the street and asking questions. It's not illegal or against the law to ask voluntary questions and it not considered a search or seizure under the Constitution.

A Terry stop or a brief investigatory stop is the second kind of police interaction. This involves temporary detention and not an arrest, but not free to walk away. Having reasonable suspicion is required and is not considered a seizure. If there is reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime, this would give officers reasons to search and seize. Things such as sudden movement or sight of a weapon would qualify as a reason to search or seize items from a suspect.

However, you will find cases which hold a police officer does not need probable cause to believe a crime had occurred if the contact between the officer and the defendant is not an arrest but a mere encounter or a brief investigative detention." What level of suspicion justifies a brief investigative detention? Of course, you want to argue this was not a mere encounter, but at least a brief investigative detention, or a full arrest. Also, consider the concepts known as the "plain view doctrine and plain smell doctrine under which an officer may testify as to items he saw or smelled if they were in plain view or able to be smelled and the officer had the right to be where he could see or smell the items.]

Did Trooper Martin violate Mr. Jones constitutional right against unreasonable search or seizure by seizing and using the second cell phone he removed from beneath the front passenger seat of Mr. Greens car without permission or a search warrant? Suggested Answer: Yes

[A facial application of the US 4th Amendment would lead to an answer of

yes. However, there are exceptions to the protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Trooper Martin knew from years of police work that it is very common for drug deals to be set up over a cell phone, and it was crucial for him to find and use all of Mr. Jones cell phones quickly, before the public, including illegal drug dealers, knew

Mr. Jones had been arrested for possession of drugs.

Was Trooper Martins knowledge, which the court would accept as true, sufficient to constitute an exigent circumstance rendering the search reasonable under the time constraints and therefore not violative of constitutional protections? Of course, your contention is that this knowledge does not constitute a sufficient exigent circumstance.]

There was no probable cause from the incident report which would have given Trooper Martin the right to access Mr. Jones car. Mr. Jones was seen to cooperate and for a probable cause, the suspect needs to give reasons to suggest a need for a probable cause. Accessing Mr. Jones phone which no legal warrant is another violation of a person's privacy. Trooper Martin had the right option which was to follow the right legal procedure.

Should all testimony and evidence of the illegal drug deal between Trooper Martin and Ms. Green be suppressed and excluded from use in the trial of your client, Ms. Green, if the Court Rules Trooper Martin violated Mr. Jones constitutional rights pursuant to Issue #1 or Issue #2? Suggested Answer: Yes

All the evidence Trooper Martin and Ms. Green need to be suppressed in this case due to the fact that the law needs to be observed and in this case, the defendant rights have been violated by the officer. The Law is in place to protect the people and misuse of power leads to lack of effective implementation of the law. Evidence acquired via wrongful means less in front of the court and holds less weight hence not enough to convict Ms. Green. There is a principle of law regarding unlawful search and seizure which states that evidence seized illegally against one person cannot be used in a trial against another person. This happens to be the case. There is no other evidence available for the case. It is up to the responsibility of the police training that the practice of law-abiding would be maintained. This separates the police from the criminal hence the minute the police fail to abide to the laws who has to set an example of what is expected of them by the law. The possession of the illegal substance is against the law and the conducting of illegal such is as well a wrong. Two wrongs do not give a right. The validity of this evidence is then compromised. For a police officer to be tasked with an undercover mission, this should be authorized by the superior of the officer but not the self-appointed position of the officer which puts his life at risk.

Statement of Facts

(The "Statements of the Facts" gives the material (relevant and significant) facts of the case and presents them in a form and order attractive to the brief writer's position.)

Turning right (southward) off U.S. Route 522 and onto Broad Street, Trooper Martin noticed as he passed the parking lot of Cole's hardware store, an old dilapidated car parked in the lot. Although the store was closed, there were no signs indicating the parking lot could not be used during overnight hours. There were no other cars in the parking lot. This car was parked with the engine running in a dark area partially obscured by a storage building about 25 feet from the rear of the store. The Trooper thought the situation seemed suspicious: either someone was planning to burglarize the closed store or the driver could be experiencing some personal or mechanical difficulty. The Trooper drove into the lot and parked his cruiser next to the car. He walked to the car and could not see the interior with his flashlight because the windows were obscured with what appeared to be humidity or fog on the inside of the windows.

He knocked on the drivers side window and did not receive any response. For 5 minutes he continued to knock harder and louder until he heard a voice from inside the car say: I am ok, just a little tired, Ill be leaving in a minute.

Trooper Martin said: You are not driving away until I am sure you are able to drive safely.

Although the doors and windows to the car remained closed, the man inside the car, a

Mr. Robert Jones, replied: I am sorry officer, but I have not broken any law and I need to leave. My defroster will clear my windows in a minute and I must go.

The Trooper, in command voice, said: Sir, this is Trooper Martin of the Pennsylvania State Police, and I order you to turn off your engine and exit your car so we can talk.

Mr. Jones obeyed, exited his car, and then reclosed the car door. However, during the brief moment the car door was open Trooper Martin could see a marijuana bong on the front passengers seat and could also smell a distinct odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the car.

After Mr. Jones exited his car, the Trooper confiscated a cell phone Mr. Jones was holding. Trooper Martin placed Mr. Jones in handcuffs and without providing so-called Miranda Warnings, asked: Are the pipe and cell phone yours? Mr. Jones said: Yes. Trooper Martin then turned on the phone he confiscated from Mr. Jones, checked recent calls and found none.

More Troopers arrived at the scene shortly thereafter intending to impound Mr. Jones car in order to conduct a full search with a search warrant they intended to secure when the Judge became available at 9:00 AM. However, Trooper Martin wanted to act without delay so without securing a search warrant, he opened the car door and removed the marijuana bong from the front passenger seat, and a second cell phone (turned off) which he found on the floor under the front passenger se...