Scenario 2: Defendant’s Motion to Suppress
In this scenario, all the evidence collected by the officer after frisking the Hispanic man should be suppressed. Therefore, the tool found bugling at the suspect’s waistline should be suppressed from being used in the court of law.
The actions of the officer in this scenario violate the suspect’s fourth amendment rights that prohibit unreasonable seizures and searches.
While the officer had the right to investigate the cases of burglaries and robberies reported by the residents he violated the rights of the Hispanic man. In this instance, he saw a man legally walking alone in the streets and assumed he was a burglar. No law in the United States prohibits people from walking alone in the streets. Therefore, the officer had no legal justification to frisk the Hispanic man. Besides, the suspect did not appear to pose any threat to the public or the police officer. The officer’s actions were thus illegal and violated the man’s fourth amendment rights.
The fourth amendment rights of the American constitution prohibit unwarranted seizures and searches. In this instance, before a search is conducted on an individual or the property of an individual the police are required to acquire warrants from the court. Besides, the magistrate or judge will only issue the order if there is a legitimate probable cause. The permit describes the type of search, place, and the things or people to be seized. Therefore, evidence sized after the violation of a person’s fourth amendments is usually suppressed in the court of law.
Scenario 2: Prosecution’s Response
Some of the evidence from the situation suggests that the actions of the police officer were warranted. Firstly, the officer on duty was under obligation to ensure that the burglaries and robberies were stopped. While on duty he noticed a suspicious man on the streets and decided to determine his identity. However, the man declined to give a clear answer to his place of residence. Therefore, he was forced to investigate further to determine who precisely the individual was and if he was connected to the crimes in the area. He decided to frisk the man due to his suspicious behavior and found a tool in his possession. It is accurate to argue that the officer’s instincts were correct because the suspect had a tool used to break into houses.
While no law in the United States prohibits a man from walking alone in the street, the area had been subjected to repeated robberies and burglaries. Therefore, the police officer did not frisk the man because he was walking alone in the streets but because of the security situation. Police officers have the moral duty to protect the property and lives of the civilians. Therefore, he was justified to view every suspicious man walking at night in the area as a suspect. Besides, when the officer approached the man, he did not give a clear answer on who he was and where he was headed. The officer’s actions were therefore justified and led to the arrest of the man who had been terrorizing the public.
Various provisions in the law support the reasonable arguments by the prosecution. Firstly, in cases where the evidence confiscated affects the rights of another person other than the defendant and the suspect has no standing to complain the evidence is admissible in court. Therefore, the suspect’s actions of robbery using the tool violated the rights of other citizens making the evidence acceptable. Also, the case of Attenuation can be used to justify the decision of the police officer. The evidence he seized from the suspect is critical and proves that he is a dangerous individual outweighing the argument of illegality in collecting the evidence.