{br} STUCK with your assignment? {br} When is it due? {br} Get FREE assistance. Page Title: {title}{br} Page URL: {url}
UK: +44 748 007-0908, USA: +1 917 810-5386 [email protected]
  1. Law Case Study


    Discuss the statement made on the violation of the traffic regulations


Subject Law and governance Pages 3 Style APA


Law Case Study: Writing Assignment 

Question #1

Yes, the stop of the truck was lawful under the Fourth Amendment. Officer Ferries followed the truck after it pulled down from the parking lot of a bar. After a while, he realized that the truck was behaving funnily and violated traffic laws. For instance, the truck slowed down and speeded again. The truck began to over speed and passed other vehicles from both the left and right sides. It slammed on a gas and accelerated to a speed of 85mph through downtown Lansing. The driver had evidently violated traffic rules and it was in order for the officer to stop it. According to the Fourth Amendment, an officer is allowed to conduct a traffic stop if he or she has reasons to believe that a driver has violated traffic rules. Besides, such stoppages can also be conducted when there are suspicions of criminal activities. Nonetheless, special law enforcement concerns can warrant traffic stops even without any individualized suspicions. Speedman was endangering his life, the occupants, the lives of other motorist and pedestrians, and had to be stopped.

Question #2

Speedman was legally detained while Twitchy was detained illegally. Speedman was the driver of the truck and he violated traffic regulations by over speeding and putting the lives of other people in danger. Besides, the truck had slammed into a gas indicating that he would continue to vandalize other people’s properties if they were left to go. Thus, reckless driving is an unusual behavior that is enough for an officer to arrest and detain suspects involved in the act. Twitchy was merely an occupant and should have been exempted from the police actions. The exceptions in the Fourth Amendment makes it legal for officers to stop, question and arrest people they believe to have committed crimes such as violation of traffic laws. Twitchy had not committed any crime. The evidence planted on him was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

Question #3

There are two explanations concerning the lawful arrest of the occupants. It was lawful to arrest Speedman based on the traffic offenses committed. However, it was not lawful to arrest the occupants based on the evidence of unlawful search. For instance, Ferris realized that there was a backpack and five empty cans of Bud Lite on the floorboard at the passenger side. Twitchy accepted that the backpack was his and allows the officer to check its content. However, he changed his mind before the officer could conduct a search and asks Ferris not to proceed with the search. Nonetheless, Ferris went on with the search and realized small plastic baggies with red bulldogs on the sides of the bag and each baggie contained white crystal powder that appeared as methamphetamine. The officer conducted another search on him, found a handgun in his coat pocket, and informed him that he was under arrest. According to the Fourth Amendment, citizens are protected from searches of places, luggage, purse, vehicle, and other places which the individual has other places of privacy. While the occupants had violated traffic offence, they were protected from search and seizures of their vehicle and personal belongings without their consent.

Question #4

According to the case, there are evidences that are admissible while others are not admissible in the court of law. The evidence admissible in a judicial process includes those of traffic offences such as over speeding, wrongful overtaking of other motorists, ramming on the gas, speeding through the police roadblocks. The evidences are legitimate claims and reasons for which the officers stopped the truck. It entails the violations of the traffic regulations. On the other hand, the evidence that would not be admissible is methamphetamine, shot gun, and cans of Bud Lite. According to the Fourth Amendment, the evidences obtained from unlawful search and seizers are kept out of criminal case. In fact, the criminal may go free because the officers violated his or her rights during arrest. An arrest that is made based on an invalid warrant of arrest violates the Fourth Amendment, and evidence obtained in that manner is not admissible in the court of law. When Speedman refused to conduct a consensus blood draw, Ferris wrote a search warrant. The warrant was not valid since it was issued under no specific circumstances. 

Question #5

The statement made on the violation of the traffic regulations is admissible since it is evidence that the driver of the truck was over speeding and risked his life and the life of others. Nonetheless, he led the officers to a chase and admitted to taking two bottles of beer. The statement on Twitchy criminal history is also not admissible since it is not related to the current crime. Furthermore, the statement on possession of methamphetamine and short gun as well as driving under the influence of drugs is not admissible on twitchy. Methamphetamine and handgun were discovered after the officers conducted an illegal search of the car, violating his Fourth Amendment. The statement on the glass pipe and red bulldog found on the passenger door side is not admissible. They cannot be used to implicate Speedman on charges of operating while intoxicated since they were obtained in disregard of the Fourth Amendment.


Related Samples

WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, how can I help?