Reference no: EM133277422

On June 26, 1993, Detective Smallwood and other narcotics detectives conducted an undercover surveillance operation in an area known for drug trafficking. In the afternoon, Detective Smallwood observed, through binoculars, a white Ford Tempo drive into the area and park on West Third Street. Nothing obstructed Detective Smallwood's view. The driver, later identified as Davis, was the sole occupant of the automobile. Davis sat alone in the car for about two minutes until a woman, later identified as Deborah Walls, walked up to the vehicle and entered it from the passenger's side. Detective Smallwood had not encountered either Davis or Walls before that day.

Davis and Walls, who were visible to the detective only from the chest up, talked to each other in the car for about five minutes. As Walls emerged from the car, she "started looking around really suspiciously, looking back and forth up and down the street." She was carrying a brown paper shopping or grocery bag that had been rolled down so that it was approximately five inches high. Walls had the bag tucked under her arm, and she began walking away from the car. Davis drove away in a different direction.

Detective Smallwood concluded that Walls had obtained the bag during her encounter with Davis, as the officer did not observe the bag on her when she entered the car and as Walls could not have concealed the bag under her clothing. He believed that he had just witnessed a drug transaction based on his experience as a detective in over 1,000 narcotics investigations, "the numerous times [he][had] seen people transferring and pass narcotics in paper bags and make dropoffs," "the area," and the suspicious nature of the pair's activities. The detective broadcast a description of Davis's vehicle and advised of its direction of travel. He then radioed Detectives Newman and Hoose, who were patrolling the area in a marked vehicle, and instructed them to stop Walls. Detective Hoose stopped Walls and immediately grabbed the bag from her. He looked inside and found between 100 and 200 glass vials containing a white residue. Walls was placed under arrest.

After hearing from Detectives Hoose and Newman, Detective Smallwood radioed a description of Davis's car, together with its license plate number, to all nearby units. He requested that Davis's car be stopped based on the suspicion that Davis possessed drugs or narcotics paraphernalia in his vehicle. Almost immediately after receiving Detective Smallwood's second transmission, two other detectives, Detectives Williams and Hawkins, spotted Davis's automobile approaching, and pulled over Davis's car. Both detectives exited their patrol car simultaneously. As they neared Davis, the detectives ordered him out of the car. As he exited the vehicle, Davis blurted out that he had "bottles" in his back pocket. Detective Williams understood "bottles" to mean "glass vials of cocaine" in street parlance. He then retrieved and confiscated three vials of crack cocaine from Davis's right rear pants pocket and placed him under arrest.

1. What level of justification/suspicion did Detectives Newman and Hoose require to stop Walls?

Police needed probable cause that a crime had occured to stop Walls.

Police needed reasonable suspicion that a crime had occurred to stop Walls.

Police needed a hunch that a crime had occurred to stop Walls.

Police did not need any level of suspicion to stop Walls because they had seen Walls' actions with their own eyes.

2. What factors can be considered in determining whether Det. Smallwood had any particular level of suspicion. Choose all that apply.

The fact that Walls looked "back and forth" and "up and down the street" after she got out of Davis' vehicle.

The fact that Walls was carrying a brown paper shopping back after she exited the car

The area where Davis and Walls were meeting.

The detective's experience with narcotics offenses

3. Did Det. Newman and Det. Hoose violate the Fourth Amendment when they took Wall's bag and looked inside.

No, the officers had a hunch that a crime had been committed and they were performing a valid Terry frisk.

No, the officers had reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed and they were performing a valid Terry frisk.

Yes, the officers had reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed but they were not performing a valid Terry frisk.

Yes, the officers had reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed and they were performing a valid Terry frisk.

4. What level of Justification is necessary to justify taking a suspect's property and looking inside.

Property on a suspect's person can be searched if the officers have probable cause that a crime has occurred and the suspect has been arrested.

Property on a suspect's person can be searched if the suspect consents to talk to the police.

Property on a suspect's person can never be searched without probable cause and a warrant.

Property on a suspect's person can be searched if the officer has a hunch that the property contains drugs.

5. What is the best argument Wells can make for why the police did not have the required level of suspicion needed for a search of her personal property.

The police should spend more time investigating serious crimes.

The police only had probable cause based on the factors provided and probable cause is not enough to seize her property.

The police did not have a warrant to search her property.

The police only had reasonable suspicion based on the factors provided and reasonable suspicion is not enough to seize her property.

6. Did Detectives Newman and Hoose violate the Fourth Amendment?

Yes, although they witnessed first-hand the suspicious activity between Davis and Wells, they did not have the requisite level of justification to seize Ms. Well's bag and search it.

No, they witnessed the suspicious activity first hand, they have a wealth of experience investigating drug crimes, and it is common knowledge that drug users carry dangerous weapons.

No, any Fourth Amendment violation is outweighed by crime prevention.

Yes, they should have sought a search warrant after Wells left Davis' car.

7. What level of justification/suspicion did Detectives Williams and Hawkins require to stop Davis's car?

Det. Williams and Det. Hawkins needed a hunch that a crime was being committed or had recently been committed to stop Davis' car.

Det. Williams and Det. Hawkins needed to witness a traffic violation before they could stop the vehicle.

Det. Williams and Det. Hawkins needed reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed or had recently been committed to stop Davis' car.

Det. Williams and Det. Hawkins needed probable cause that a crime was being committed or had recently been committed to stop Davis' car.

8. Davis stated that he had "bottles" in his back pocket. Was this statement made in violation of Miranda?

Yes, Miranda warnings should be read even if a suspect is not answering questions.

No, Miranda warnings were not necessary because Davis was still free to leave.

No, this statement did not violate Miranda.

Yes, before a suspect makes any statement, officers must read that person their Miranda rights.

9. Detectives Williams and Hawkins then arrested Davis. What level of justification/suspicion is necessary to justify this arrest?

Police need reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed in order to arrest Davis.

Police need probable cause that a crime had been committed in order to arrest Davis.

Police need a hunch that a crime had been committed in order to arrest Davis.

Police need to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to arrest Davis.

10. Did the detectives need a warrant to seize the contraband on Davis' person.

No, police did not need a warrant because Davis handed the officers the glass bottles.

No, police did not need a warrant because Davis was going to be arrested and he was searched incident to his arrest.

Yes, police always need a warrant to seize contraband.

Yes, police did need a warrant because Davis was no longer in his vehicle.

11. Did Detectives Williams and Hawkins violate the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?

Yes, the Detectives violated the Fourth Amendment when they failed to read Davis his Miranda rights.

No, Detectives did not violate the Fourth Amendment because they witnessed an obvious drug transaction from start to finish.

No, the Detectives did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Yes, the Detectives violated the Fourth Amendment when they failed to get a search warrant before confiscating the bottles in Davis' possession.

12. We've spent significant time in the latter part of the course discussing police tactics - both some of the rules, and some of the concerns these tactics present.

Here are some police tactics we have discussed:

Stop & Frisk

Interrogation practices that includes lying to suspects

Line-ups / show-ups for victims to identify perpetrators

WiretapsExpansive databases of phone calls / texts / emails available to search at any time