Warrantless Search and Seizure Memorandum

Warrantless Search and Seizure Memorandum1

Warrantless Search and Seizure Memorandum

Following the Guidelines of the American Psychological Association Styleguide

For Your Information

Re: Project 2 Warrantless Search and Seizure Memorandum

To: Professor

From: Student

Scenario

In the example given of a warrantless search and seizure done by Officer Timothy Johnson which resulted in the arrest of Elliott Watson, Officer Johnson was originally out on patrol in response to an Amber Alert for a 3-year-old girl named Wanda Jones who was taken by her 69-year-old father Albert Finney. Officer Johnson arrested Mr. Watson for possession of drugs, possession of drug paraphernalia, as well as the intent to distribute the drugs, all in violation of Title 21 of the United States legal code (U.S. Department of Justice, 2016).

Question and Answer

Is there an example of Project 2 Warrantless Search and Seizure Memorandum for UMUC?The example given in the basic scenario above is not a warrantless search and seizure in theory, although yes, it was done without a warrant. Officer Johnson had the right to stop Mr. Watson since his sports car was stalling and he suspected that something may be going on with the driver. Indeed, when Officer Johnson stopped Mr. Watson he found drug paraphernalia, drugs and suspected that Mr. Watson was also a drug dealer.

Search and Seizure Law

There are five steps involved with Search and Seizure Law:

The five steps are: 1. Did the officer seize the defendant? 2. Did the officer have grounds for the seizure? 3. Did the officer act within the scope of the seizure? 4. Did the officer have grounds to arrest or search? 5. Did the officer act within the scope of the arrest or search? Generally, if an officer lacks authorization at any particular step, evidence uncovered by the officer as a result of the unauthorized action is subject to suppression. See generally 5 LAFAVE § 11.4 (NC Defender Manual, 2002).

Going through the five steps:

In answer to the first question, Officer Johnson did seize the defendant Mr. Watson.
In answer to the second question, Officer Johnson did have grounds for the seizure of Mr. Watson because Mr. Watson’s car was stalling and Officer Johnson suspected something, and then found Mr. Watson in possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia.
In answer to question to the third question, Officer Johnson did act within the scope of the seizure since he followed all the rules of arrest in order to arrest Mr. Watson.
In answer to question four, Officer Johnson did have grounds to arrest and to search based on Mr. Watson fitting the description of the Amber Alert and as Officer Johnson searched Mr. Watson further, although Mr. Watson was not the person associated with the Amber Alert, Mr. Watson was breaking the law.
In answer to the fourth question, Officer Johnson did act within the scope of the arrest and the search.

For all of these reasons, Officer Johnson did not perform a warrantless search and seizure on Mr. Watson.

Discussion

Officer Johnson’s search and seizure of Mr. Watson was valid. Officer Johnson followed all of the rules of law and Mr. Watson was clearly breaking the law. Officer Johnson’s initial stop of Mr. Watson was based on the fact that Mr. Watson’s sports car stalled. Mr. Watson was having a difficult time restarting the car, so Officer Johnson pulled him over. From the full and detailed scenario Officer Johnson did not intend to search Mr. Watson, however Mr. Watson got out of his vehicle so Officer Johnson told him to put his hands on the car. As Officer Johnson did a pat down search of Mr. Watson he felt what he thought was a gun, however it was a pot pipe – which is still illegal and even more illegal because Mr. Watson could have had a firearms license if he were carrying a gun and actually would have then been allowed to have the gun if he purchased it through a licensed dealer.

Officer Johnson then handcuffed Mr. Watson and put him in the rear of his patrol car and questioned Mr. Watson regarding his name with the Amber Alert in mind. It is for the reason of the Amber Alert dispatch that Officer Johnson searched Mr. Watson’s car, as well as the fact that Officer Johnson found a pot pipe on Mr. Watson. After Officer Johnson searched Mr. Watson’s vehicle, he also found drugs in a quantity that led Officer Johnson to believe that Mr. Watson could be a drug dealer. At this point, Officer Johnson placed Mr. Watson under arrest.

All of these circumstances led to the arrest of Mr. Watson. At each point Officer Johnson was adhering to the following:

Basically the five steps of Search and Seizure Law. Officer Johnson followed all of the rules as explained below:

In answer to the first question, Officer Johnson did seize the defendant Mr. Watson.
In answer to the second question, Officer Johnson did have grounds for the seizure of Mr. Watson because Mr. Watson’s car was stalling and Officer Johnson suspected something, and then found Mr. Watson in possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia.
In answer to question to the third question, Officer Johnson did act within the scope of the seizure since he followed all the rules of arrest in order to arrest Mr. Watson.
In answer to question four, Officer Johnson did have grounds to arrest and to search based on Mr. Watson fitting the description of the Amber Alert and as Officer Johnson searched Mr. Watson further, although Mr. Watson was not the person associated with the Amber Alert, Mr. Watson was breaking the law.
In answer to the fourth question, Officer Johnson did act within the scope of the arrest and the search.

Conclusion

Officer Johnson was within his right to arrest Mr. Watson according to Search and Seizure Law.

References

North Carolina Defender Manual. (April 2002). North Carolina Defender Manual. North

Carolina: Institute of Government. Retrieved from

U.S. Department of Justice. (2016). Office of Diversion Control. Washington: United States of

America. Retrieved from