1. Analyze Officer Edwards 's searches, if any, and note which may survive constitutional challenge.
Officer Edward and Officer Casey are set up a road block to catch drunk drivers, during this roadblock they stop a blue minivan. This action in itself would withstand a constitutional challenge since roadblocks such as these are allowed in most states. The length of time officer Edwards interrogates Jane might be questionable. Considering that he notes no signs of intoxication of any passengers after a minute or so, it could be seen as unreasonable that he would hold her for another three minutes to interrogated her about where she was coming from and going. Therefore this specific stop might not survive a constitutional challenge.
Officer …show more content…
He pursues Bob and follows him into an apartment building, where he places him under arrest and searches his pockets. This search in constitutional since he placed Bob under arrest before searching him for weapons or other items that could pose a risk. As Bob was fleeing Officer Casey noticed him throwing something into apartment 101. After he hands Bob over to Officer Edwards, Officer Casey opens the door to apartment 101. Inside he finds a handgun and notices an old odor of marijuana. Since he was in hot pursuit of a suspect when he noticed the suspect dispose of something in one of the apartments, the search for the gun within the immediate proximity of the apartment door would withstand a constitutional challenge. Considering that the suspect was running and only opens the apartment door to throw his item insight would reasonably indicate that Officer Casey could open the apartment door and search for the item in the area that is visible to him from his position at the door. Stepping further inside the door might violate the terms of hot pursuit and mean that anything found through plain view in the apartment would not be admissible since the officer was not on the premises legally and therefore the plain sight doctrine would not
Officer Edward and Officer Casey are set up a road block to catch drunk drivers, during this roadblock they stop a blue minivan. This action in itself would withstand a constitutional challenge since roadblocks such as these are allowed in most states. The length of time officer Edwards interrogates Jane might be questionable. Considering that he notes no signs of intoxication of any passengers after a minute or so, it could be seen as unreasonable that he would hold her for another three minutes to interrogated her about where she was coming from and going. Therefore this specific stop might not survive a constitutional challenge.
Officer …show more content…
He pursues Bob and follows him into an apartment building, where he places him under arrest and searches his pockets. This search in constitutional since he placed Bob under arrest before searching him for weapons or other items that could pose a risk. As Bob was fleeing Officer Casey noticed him throwing something into apartment 101. After he hands Bob over to Officer Edwards, Officer Casey opens the door to apartment 101. Inside he finds a handgun and notices an old odor of marijuana. Since he was in hot pursuit of a suspect when he noticed the suspect dispose of something in one of the apartments, the search for the gun within the immediate proximity of the apartment door would withstand a constitutional challenge. Considering that the suspect was running and only opens the apartment door to throw his item insight would reasonably indicate that Officer Casey could open the apartment door and search for the item in the area that is visible to him from his position at the door. Stepping further inside the door might violate the terms of hot pursuit and mean that anything found through plain view in the apartment would not be admissible since the officer was not on the premises legally and therefore the plain sight doctrine would not