Due Process
An arrest deprives a person of their constitutionally protected fundamental rights to freedom. Due to the legal cushion, arrests are conducted by warrant bar where the crime was observed by the arresting officer, or where the doctrine of probable cause is applicable. Although arrests under the two exceptions exception are warrantless, they occur within the confines of the law.
The exceptions cannot apply arbitrarily but in line with the law. Procedures such as an actual observation of crime, probable cause, or an arrest warrant issued by a judge must be observed before an officer makes a legal arrest. The case against the couple arrested for possession of marijuana is stable enough for prosecution since my partner and I searched lawfully. Therefore, although the law protects individuals against infringement through arbitrary arrest, it also provides an exceptional rule to unique situations.
A similar scenario occurs with searches and seizure of property. While the fourth amendment law cushions individuals against unreasonable searches, it does not prohibit all searches and seizures. Thus, we applied the doctrine of probable cause to conduct a warrantless search. We searched for the couple’s car because I distinguished marijuana smoke emanating from their vehicle. Accordingly, the probable cause for seizure of the small bag resulted from my belief that its content was contraband. Consequently, it constituted evidence.
The plain view doctrine is an exception to a warrant as it prohibits a law officer from stopping a legal search if evidence of a crime (contraband) is in plain view. However, in our case, although the contraband was not in plain sight, the ‘incriminating’ nature of the contraband was ‘readily apparent’ to us through previous encounters with marijuana cases hence easy identification of the drug. Further, the fruit of the poisonous tree does not apply because the discovery of marijuana was inevitable from the distinguishable smoke. We searched legally; hence contraband evidence is admissible.
Balancing two vital interests determine the reasonability of any search before the law. On the one hand, concerns over intrusion on a person’s Fourth Amendment rights linger while, on the other hand, legitimate government interest in matters like public safety assume prominence. I believe my partner and I found the right balance between probable infringement and possible benefits. Thus the case is solid for prosecution.