Introduction
Every US citizen has a right not to have their privacy unreasonably intruded into according to the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Moreover, under this Amendment, search warrants shall not be issued to law enforcement officers unless there is probable cause that particularly describes the specific place that the police needs to search or the things subject to seizure. In the state of Florida, for example, the requirements of a search warrant are provided under Chapter 933 and include the existence of probable cause, search for only the property specified in the warrant, supported by an affirmation or oath, and bearing the signature of a judge. These have been affirmed in Barrentine v. State of Florida (1979). Where the police conducts a search without probable cause or the search warrant is too broad and vague, any evidence obtained from that place according to the exclusionary rule is considered a “fruit of the poisonous tree” and therefore illegal hence cannot be used against an individual. In cases of drug law violation as in the present scenario, the police can search a residence after proving probable cause, but can only search and seizure what the warrant covers and no more (Goldberg, 2013).
Hence, from the facts, Officer Landonio cannot take the cocaine obtained from the residence due to lack of probable cause supporting such an action. The primary reason the search and seizure warrant was obtained was for a stolen 50-inch plasma television set and not drugs. As stated in the case of Mapp v Ohio (1961), where the police lack probable cause to suspect that a crime had been, was being or was about to be committed on the premises to be searched, the police cannot take anything from the place. Otherwise, any evidence that violates the Fourth Amendment will not be admissible.
Under the probable cause doctrine or requirement, a search and seizure may only be conducted if there is sufficient evidence that reasonable people in the society would believe that a crime had been committed, was being committed, or about to be committed in the place to be searched (Bacigal &Tate, 2014, p. 157). Probable cause has been defined in Beck v Ohio (1964) as being the presence of information that is of such sufficiency as to warrant a prudent and reasonable person to believe that the defendant was committing or had committed an offense. However, Officer Landonio may rely on the inevitable discovery, an exclusionary rule exception enunciated in Nix v Williams (1984). In this case, the court held that where the police learn of evidence through illegal means, such evidence may be admitted on proof that it would have been discovered anyway had the Constitutional means been followed.
Officer Landonio’s options are to ask the residents to explain the source of the illegal drug and to show them the search warrant. This is because the due process law requires the police to accord people the opportunity to defend themselves. By law, the actions Officer Landonio will be required to take to take the residents into custody and seize the illegal drugs. This is because without taking such an action, the residents may destroy the evidence of illegal cocaine in the apartment.
Discretion is the wherewithal or authority by the law enforcement officer to make the appropriate decision as to whether or not to carry out an arrest, search, or seizure. The law expects police officers to exercise their discretion judiciously or legally rather than arbitrarily and without any legal basis. They must not abuse their discretion. According to Bronitt and Stenning (2011), police discretion involves making the right choice when the police are presented with various possible causes of action including the issuance of licenses or permits, choice of procedure and investigative measures, disposal of cases, intervention methods and choice of objectives. In this case, discretion comes into play in that it determines the array of actions that the officer may take or the possibilities available to him in these circumstances. The discretion enables him to make the right decision as to whether or not to arrest the residents or take away the illegal drugs found in residence.
The non-residents present in the dwelling can be handled by determining their knowledge about the presence of illegal drugs in residence. Where they are aware of illegal activity taking place in the residence and fail to report to the police, then they may also be subject to arrests and prosecution. However, the police must handle them well by respecting their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The officer must handle them in the most humane way possible by not harassing them.
The non-residents if arrested may be charged with the offense of aiding and abetting a crime or failure to report the possession of illegal drugs and the commission of offense in their presence. They will be treated as accomplices in the crime of facilitating the commission of a crime. They may also be charged with the offense of harboring a criminal because they failed to inform the police about the presence of illegal drugs in the residence before Officer Landonio came into the apartment.
Usually, following the arrest of an individual for illegal drug possession, a specific process is followed in the criminal justice system for the defendant. During this time, the law enforcement officers are required by law to follow and adhere to the legal procedures and processes. Some of these procedures were explained by the Court in Miranda v Arizona (1966). Should the residents be arrested, the next steps in the process include booking of the suspect, reading and explanation of Miranda rights to the accused residents, and questioning and interrogation of the suspects (Scheb & Scheb, 2009). After these processes, the residents will be arraigned in court to answer to the charges of illegal drug possession whereby charges will be read to them and pleas were taken.
Yes, drug courts can come into play regarding this cause. The reason for this is the fact that this case involves a non-violent drug related offense which falls under the original jurisdiction of the drug courts. Moreover, from the facts, it is evident that the residents or one of them were struggling with drug addiction problems as evidenced by the presence of prescription and illegal drugs. Drug courts would, therefore, come into play to provide substance abuse treatment services combined with probation supervision and judicial monitoring or oversight. However, whether or not drug courts will come into play regarding this case will also depend on some illegal drugs found in the resident’s possession. Drug courts commonly handle cases involving non-violent first-time offenders found in possession of small quantities of illegal drugs.
Conclusion
Typically, drug law offenders will be fined when there are mitigating factors or circumstances such as possession of a small amount of the drug or where the offender has a good criminal history and record regarding prior convictions for illegal possession. Drug law offenders may be incarcerated when there is evidence of manufacture or cultivation of illegal drugs or intent to distribute the illegal drugs, the offender has previous drug-related convictions, and the weight of the drug in question is high.
References
Bacigal, R.J., & Tate, M.K. (2014). Criminal law and procedure: An overview. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning
Bonitt, S., & Stenning, P. (2011). Understanding discretion in modern policing. Crime Law Journal, 35, 319-330
Goldberg, E.R. (2013). Getting beyond intuition in the probable cause inquiry. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 17 (789), 1-61
Scheb, J., & Scheb, J. (2009). Criminal law. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Leaning
