I. Introduction
The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from conducting “unreasonable search and seizures” on the public. While reasonableness depends on the circumstances, such whether the act is a search or a seizure, the United State Supreme Court has, nevertheless, determined that a reasonable governmental search or seizure of a person occurs with a warrant or probable cause of criminal activity (Miller et al., 2012). Absent a warrant or probable cause, a search or a seizure can still be reasonable if it satisfies one of a number of exceptions to the general rule.
Accordingly, in the cases of Betsy and Adam, the initial question to resolve is whether Officer Peace and Rowdy had the right to “seize” or exercise control over them in the first place (Miller, et al., 2012). Under the facts of the case, Peace and Rowdy did not have a warrant; therefore, they would need either probable cause of criminal activity or the circumstances of the situation would have to be exceptional. In this case, probable cause was provided by the caller that originally notified the police of what he or she thought to be drug activity. The caller’s description, while not completely accurate, was detailed enough, including the address of the building, the description of the car, the identification of people present in the area, and the alleged activity taking place in the car.
The information provided by the caller gave the officers with enough reasonable trustworthy facts and circumstances that would convince a reasonable person to believe that the two people as described were committing or about to commit a crime. Accordingly, Peace and Rowdy had reason to stop the car or people that fit the caller’s description, at least to verify if they were indeed taking drugs.
II. Betsy
As soon as Officer Peace spotted the car and occupant that matched the caller’s description leaving the area exact area identified as its location, he had the authority to the car in order to perform an investigatory stop, which is informally known as a “Terry Stop”, to determine if the person was indeed involved in a criminal activity. As mentioned above, the authority to make an investigatory stop is based on an officer having either probable cause or reasonable suspicion, which is a standard that is less strict than probable cause, of criminal activity. This was provided by the information provided by the caller. Whatever standard Officer Peace was relying on to initiate the investigatory stop, it definitely became probable cause once he activated his emergency lights and Betsy immediately sped off. At that point, Peace had full authority to stop Betsy.
Furthermore, when analyzed from the totality of the circumstances that he was aware of at the time, Officer Peace gained the further authority to either conduct a search or seize the person. These circumstances included the caller’s description of events, Betsy’s attempt to flee, the observance of her throw an unknown object from the window, and finally, her crashing into the wall. To be sure, simple based on the fact that failing to yield to a police car with its emergency light on is a crime, Peace had the authority to arrest her simply based on that charge.
While the facts are silent on why he searched Betsy after the stop, a number of issues need clarification. If Betsy was already under arrest as described above, then Officer Peace had the authority to perform a search incident to arrest. This refers to a check of Betsy’s person and the area around her for weapons and contraband. If this was indeed the case, then a finding of the knife on her was legal and therefore admissible in court. On the other hand, if Betsy was not yet under arrest, and there was no evidence that Betsy was armed or dangerous, as indeed there was not, then Officer Peace would not have had the authority to search her. In this case, the knife found would have been the product of an unlawful search and therefore inadmissible at trial.
Regardless of the circumstances that may or may not have allowed Officer Peace to search Betsy; the issue of searching the briefcase in the back seat are different. As this is an object, the Fourth Amendment require probable cause of its involvement in a criminal act in order to conduct a search of it. First, the underlying reason for police interaction was taking. Once Betsy was stooped and put under Peace’s control, they only areas that could be searched were those were Betsy might have readily hid drugs or been able to easily access while under detention. As the briefcase was located in the back seat and it was closed, Officer Peace could not argue that it needed to be searched in order to determine if it contained a weapon or contraband that Betsy could have accessed because there was no evidence suggesting it contained either. Most importantly, Betsy said that the briefcase was not hers. Accordingly, she did not have the right to give consent to Peace to open and search it. Adam has a reasonable expectation of privacy in that briefcase, and there were no circumstances in Officer Peace’s interactions with Betsy to overcome Adam’s expectation, unless there was a warrant. As a result, the drugs found in the case were the result of an unlawful search and should be inadmissible in the case against her.
Similar to the briefcase, the search of the trunk would have to be based on probable cause that it contained contraband or a weapon. Based on the information provided, there was no evidence that the trunk contained either. Moreover, since the car was presumable now under Officer Peace’s control, resisting an immediate search of the trunk in order to get a search warrant would have been the more reasonable decision. Accordingly, the drugs and gram scale found in the trunk is inadmissible in court.
III. Adam
As with Officer Peace’s initial contact with Betsy, Officer Rowdy had probable cause to conduct an investigatory stop on Adam based on his location at the time that Rowdy encountered him and the information that he had received from the caller. In short, Rowdy had the authority to order Adam to stop.
Again, similar to the case with Betsy, once Adam started to run, Rowdy’s reason for stopping Adam definitively became probable cause. Although the Fourth Amendment generally finds it unreasonable for a police officer to enter into a private residence or dwelling without a warrant, the Supreme Court has allowed it when an officer is in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect. Under the hot pursuit exception, when an officer has probable cause to stop a person in a public place, and the person then flees, the officer can pursue the suspect anywhere they go even if that includes and private dwelling. In this case, Rowdy had probable cause to stop Adam when he contacted him behind the business on Industrial Way. Consequently, Rowdy also had the authority to chase Adam when he fled. The authority remained even after Adam ran into the rear door of the house.
Under the hot pursuit exception, Rowdy also had the authority to conduct a warrantless seizure of Adam. In addition, the hot pursuit exception allows Rowdy to perform a warrantless search of Adam once he was able to tackle him and get control over him but prior to placing him under arrest. Accordingly, the gun and drugs found on Adam were the result of a lawful search and seizure based on the hot pursuit exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
Even without the hot pursuit exception, however, based on the fact that it is a crime to fail to stop when ordered to do so by the police, Rowdy had probable cause and the authority to arrest Adam once he fled after Rowdy ordered him to stop. Under this scenario, Officer Rowdy could have arrested Adam as soon as he tackled him. Once under arrest, Officer Rowdy had the authority to conduct a search incident to arrest. Such an act would have revealed that Adam was in possession of a gun and drugs which, again, would have been the product of a lawful search.
IV. Conclusion
Based on an application of the Fourth Amendment to the facts as presented in the scenario, both Betsy and Adam are guilty of criminal acts. Betsy, is guilty of failing to yield to a police car with its emergency lights on and the unlawful possession of a fixed blade knife. While she might have been guilty of the unlawful possession of methamphetamines (meth), any evidence of her possession, namely the meth found in the briefcase and trunk are inadmissible against her in court. Adam is guilty of both the unlawful possession of the gun and meth found on his person as a result of the pursuit and arrest by Officer Rowdy. He is also guilty of failing to stop when order to by a police officer.
References
Miller, F., Dawson, R., Dix, G. & Parnas, R. (2012). The Police Function, 7th ed. New York, NY: Foundation Press.
