The correct answer is (a) allow the evidence to come in because Linus was not seized by the officer and, when he threw away the heroin, he could no longer claim any reasonable expectation of privacy in it. In this case we are considering the fact that in the initial tip off no description of Linus was given but by virtue of his running away from the police officer this sparked enough suspicion to his involvement with the main suspect. In addition, he was escaping in an area considered to be a high crime zone. In the contemporary criminal justice system the laws guiding seizure are ordinarily made with due consideration of privacy as a determining factor. According to Gaines and Miller (2008), “The recognized standard for a reasonable expectation of privacy was established in Katz v. United States (1967)” (p.174). In this particular case the judge sought to conclude that according to the fourth amendment, people and not places are protected. In this sense, the accused individual needs to prove that they expected privacy and society needs to acknowledge the expectation as being reasonable (Gaines & Miller, 2008).Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
On account of searching items which have been abandoned, the evidence of heroin dropped by Linus fits as evidence. This is because any property, for example a hotel room which has been vacated or contraband discarded can be searched and seized by a police officer without the need of producing a warrant (Gaines & Miller, 2008). The heroin left by Linus therefore fitted in this criterion and deserved to be taken as an exhibit. In addition, the law gives the police officers sufficient authority to act appropriately and reasonably during a search and seizure taking into account unforeseeable circumstances (Gaines & Miller, 2008). The other answers were disregarded by virtue of the fact they fail to satisfy the requirements of the law.
The correct response to this question would be (e) Deny the motion because the tip, the high crime area, and the refusal to co-operate gave the police sufficient justification to stop and frisk Charlie. According to Gaines and Miller (2008), “as long as the original arrest was based on probable cause, these searches are valid for two reasons, established by the Supreme Court in United States v. Robinson (1973)” (p.176). This is justified on the basis of the need for police to find and confiscate any weapon a suspect may carry or the need to protect any evidence present on the person from being potentially destroyed (Gaines and Miller).
The actions of the Charlie ignoring the police orders were also not warranted in that this gave significant suspicion. According to the law Police officers are allowed to frisk or pat down a person on account of the fact that they may be involved in a criminal activity or may pose significant danger to those present in the immediate area (Gaines & Miller, 2008). The other responses fail to fit to the required jurisdictions of the law.
The correct response in this case is (a) Deny the motion because the police independently corroborated essential parts of the informant’s tops and, therefore, they had reasonable suspicion to pat down Schroeder and, hence, recover the cocaine from his person. In addition to this Schroeder willing fully agreed to be searched hence there was no infringement in privacy. In addition, the police officers are in a position to search an individual without the presentation of a warrant as long as the person accepts voluntarily to be searched and he bares the legal authority to give authorization to the search.
In this case, Schroeder responded positively to the stop orders. The law describes regarding inevitable discovery that evidence illegally obtained without a warranty may be admitted as evidence as long as the prosecution can provide proof that his would have inevitably been found through lawful means (Gaines & Miller, 2008). This therefore affirms that the police were merely acting on the tip off hence they were confirming of the inevitable fact of there being cocaine in Schroeder’s possession. Their actions were therefore elementally justified also on account of circumstances accompanying the whole incident. The other responses either satisfy only a single component or completely fail to relate the facts of the crime scene.