PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCH 3
stipulated by the Florida statute, a person is liable for punishment for reckless driving. Reckless
driving may be in different forms including drifting which may be a threat to the public. On the
other hand, the driver was covered by the fourth amendment from the search but due to the fact
that he had already violated the Florida Statute on reckless driving, the officer therefore had the
right to conduct the traffic stop.
For the last few years there have been series of court ruling concerning reckless driving
in the United States and other countries. However, most of these cases ruling are different from
each other depending on various factors including evidence of reckless driving. Some of those
cases have been dismissed while other have been jailed for violating the crime. Besides, it is
important to note that these court ruling may vary depending on laws of each state. Among the
most recent cases of reckless driving includes:
ConRail., United States., & United States. (1978). In the Supreme Court of the United
States: October term, 1978 : Consolidated Rail Corporation, petitioner, v. People of the State of
Illinois, et al., respondents : petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit. Philadelphia: International Print. Co.
In the case above of PENNSYLVANIA v. Mimms which was decided on 5
1977, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dismissed the case as they found out that the traffic
officers had violated the fourth amendment against search and seizer (ConRail., United States.,
& United States, 1978). The court found out that the respondent revolver which is a deadly
weapon had been transported without license but the respondents rights had been violated during
the seizer of the weapon. However, the court stipulated that the facts were not to be disputed but
the fourth amendment had been violated by the traffic officers. The case is similar to how Officer
Reynolds conducted the traffic stop and conducted the search without a warrant.