The Officer and the Drug Arrest

THE OFFICER AND THE DRUG ARREST 5

TheOfficer and the Drug Arrest

Student Lanica Fricks

ProfessorName

CRJ 325

TheOfficer and the Drug Arrest

Aspolice officers, there are some conditions required when searchingand arresting a suspect. These requirements are necessitated by theneed to protect the innocent citizens from police harassment, whileat the same time promoting justice. The Fourth and Fifth amendmentshave the provisions that govern all police officer when searching forevidence of a crime or arresting suspects (&quotCrime and DueProcess [ushistory.org],&quot 2017). Therefore, both dictate theprocedures for the law enforcement agents to follow to ensure therights of the citizens’ right are protected. Inthe case study, Officer Jones violated the procedure since he did notget a warrant or consent for conducting the search that led to thearrest of the suspect.

Personally,I do not support officer Jones actions in search and arrest of thedrug suspect. The reason being the fourth amendment requires anofficer to seek a warrant from a judge, or consent from the suspectbefore conducting the search and arrest. Also, the Fifth Amendmentprotects suspects from being held for committing crimes whenwrongfully indicted. As per the provisions of these two amendments,Jones` actions were unlawful.

Ina similar case, Weeks v. the United States (1914), police in Missouriwent to the Fremont Week’s home without a warrant or consent fromhim. They found evidence that Week was sending lottery tickets viathe US mail during the search, and made the arrest. (&quotCaseAnalysis: Weeks v. the United States 1914,&quot 2015). Although Weekwas found guilty, the district court reversed the judgment based onthe fact that the evidence was gathered through an illegal search.Therefore, due to Officer Jones’ unlawful search and arrest, thecourt may reverse the judgment against the suspect, which waspreventable through obtaining a warrant before search and arrest. Theinformation from the anonymous caller is enough to get a warrantunder the terms of probable cause. However, Officer Jones did not usethe information to get a one and legalize his actions.

Underthe concept of probable cause, an officer is required to haveobjective circumstances that convinced him that the suspect wasselling drugs. The probable cause is usually established throughcomplete information, known facts, or reasonable belief (&quotCrimeand Due Process [ushistory.org],&quot 2017). In the case study,Officer Jones’ actions were justified under the probable causeclause. The reason for this is that the information from theanonymous caller can be used to establish probable cause when seekingan arrest warrant. The information provided revealed that the suspectwas a drug dealer. Evidently, drugs were found during the search andseized as evidence. Unfortunately, Officer Jones did not use thisinformation as probable cause in obtaining the warrant.

InIllinois v. Gates (1983), the police received an anonymous letterthat Lance and Sue Gates were moving drugs between Illinois andFlorida (&quotIllinois v. Gates 1983&quot, 2012). Although theprobable cause in this case was challengeable under totality test,other leads such as the accused tickets to Florida and suspiciousbehavior that matched that described in the anonymous letter weresignificant leads in consideration of a warrant (&quotIllinois v.Gates 1983&quot, 2012). Finally, the police found Gates with drugsand arrested them. Similarly, Officer Jones in the case study shouldhave used the information to gain a warrant, and probably find otherleads to suspect’s drug deals.

Inconclusion, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments canhelp analyze the constitutionality of the officer’s actions in asearch, arrest, and prosecution of an individual. In design andfunctions, they protect the citizens from corrupt or unreasonablepolice activities by dictating the procedure to be followed in anyevent the officers encounter suspects. All four amendments areimportant in restoration and prevention of human rights. The Fourthprevents unreasonable search and seizes, the fifth protect adefendant from wrongful indictment by the police, and the sixthamendment guaranteed the suspects fair jury and representation by anattorney during fair trials. Finally, the fourteenth amendmentensures equality before the law.

References

CaseAnalysis Weeks v. United States 1914.(2015). TheHeritage Foundation.Retrieved 12 January 2017, fromhttp://www.heritage.org/initiatives/rule-of-law/judicial-activism/cases/weeks-v-united-states

Crimeand Due Process [ushistory.org].(2017). Ushistory.org.Retrieved 12 January 2017, from http://www.ushistory.org/gov/10c.asp

Illinoisv. Gates 1983.(2012). LII/ Legal Information Institute.Retrieved 12 January 2017, fromhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/462/213