Reference no: EM133638447

Constitutional Rights and Liberties

Dealer was driving down the highway. While he was not violating any traffic laws, Joe Police who was driving behind him decided to run Dealer's license plate. The report which came back was that Dealer was wanted on an outstanding warrant for drug trafficking. Joe Police runs his siren and pulls Dealer over. Joe Police told Dealer he was under arrest for the outstanding warrant. Dealer gets out of the car and is arrested and cuffed. Joe Police escorts Dealer to the squad car and places him in the back seat of the car and locks the door.

Joe Police then went back to Dealer's car and searched the inside of the car. Finding nothing visible, Joe Police then opened the glove compartment and found bags of cocaine.

Dealer's attorney moves to suppress the cocaine before trial on the basis that Joe Police violated Dealer's 4th Amendment Rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

You are the judge. Write your decision on the suppression motion. Regardless of which decision you make, include the purpose of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, what is meant by the exclusionary rule, why the exclusionary rule is important and the purpose of the exclusionary rule. Include the purpose of suppressing the evidence, and discuss why the search was lawful or unlawful. Include what made the search legal or illegal and why. Discuss why there are legal limitations on police ability to search and seize persons or property.

On May 12, 2003, a bright young college student, Vic Tim, the son of prominent members of the community, is brutally attacked on his way home from school by a young male. He is severely beaten and his wallet is stolen. The attacker runs from the scene. When the police arrive Vic Tim tells them what happened and insists he can identify his attacker. No one was arrested that night.

The next day while on routine patrol, Officer Catchem receives information from Will Tell who witnessed the crime. He stated that he knew the individual who attacked Vic Tim, that the attacker is W. Ho Me, and he is currently in his house located at 12 Eudidit Street. Officer Catchem immediately calls his commander to obtain a warrant. A two officer back up unit meets Officer Catchem at the suspect's address. The three officers knock on the door even though they don't have a warrant yet and a young male opens the door slightly, while the safety chain is still connected. The Officers ask for Who Me, and the person inside the house says he isn't home. Officer Catchem notices that the person at the door has a black object in his hand, and fearing for his life, draws his gun and pushes the door open, breaking the safety chain. The person on the inside, who was later identified as W. Ho Me, fell to the floor in the hallway. Laying beside him is the black object which turned out to be his hairbrush. Officer Catchem and his back up unit cuff W. Ho Me. One of the officers looks into the kitchen and sees a wallet on the kitchen table. He retrieves the wallet, looks inside of it and determined that it belonged to Vic Tim. W. Ho Me is formally placed under arrest.

At the suppression hearing to suppress the evidence, the prosecutor argued that the search was valid because the police had probable cause to arrest W. Ho Me, there were exigent circumstances, the search was incident to a lawful arrest, and the evidence was in plain view.

Question: You are the defense attorney. Make the arguments in opposition to all of the prosecutor's arguments