The United State Constitutional Amendment

Running Head: PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCH

Probable Cause for search

Student’s name

Institution

Date

PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCH 2

In the United States there are various enactment that aim at improving the policies of the

country. Among such enactment is the fourth amendment which protects the citizens from illegal

searchers and seizers by the law enforcers (Woody, 2006). The constitution stipulates that the

enactment should not be violated and a search or seizer can only be conducted upon production

of a search warrant or a probable cause to conduct the search. Besides, this probable cause must

be supported by the required oath or affirmation which describes the needs for the search and the

place to be searched. The basic reason for the provision of this amendment was to protect the

citizens’ right to privacy.

From the case of Jomo Pemberton and Officer Reynolds, the driver had violated the

traffic laws in the state of Florida under chapter 316 .192 and was therefore liable for punishment

as stipulated by the statutes for reckless driving. According to Florida Statute section 316.192,

any person who drives his or her vehicle in willful disregard to his or her safety or the risks the

lives of others is guilty of reckless driving and liable for punishment either by fine, imprisonment

or both (Florida, Florida, & American Legal Publishing Company, 1990). While the fourth

amendment prohibits the officers from search and seizers, the constitution provides some unique

exemption to conduct the search. Among the few exemption of fourth amendment to conduct a

search or seizer is in a probable cause. During a probable cause, the officer must prove that there

was need to conduct to conduct the search either due to rising concerns or to prevent the offender

from escaping. In the case of Officer Reynolds, he was covered by the law when he conducted

the traffic stop.

Despite the fact that the citizens are protected by the fourth amendment for illegal

searches, sometimes there are few exemptions including circumstances calling for warrantless

search and cases where there is probable cause to search as the case of Officer Reynolds. As

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

December

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.

PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCH 4

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806

In the case of Whren V. the United States, the district court found out that the officer had

cause to conduct a traffic stop and believe that the petitioner had violated the traffic code. In the

above case, the traffic officer conducted a traffic stop due to violation of the law that led to

search and the court determined that the officer had probable cause to conduct the search (United

States, 1996). The case above is the same as that of Mr. Pemberton and Officer Reynolds

because the officer conducted the traffic stop due to violation of traffic laws which led to search

and arrest of the driver.

Lorenzo Prado NAVERETTEE and Jose Prado Naverette V. CALIFORNIA

In the above case the California highway patrol stopped a vehicle that matched the

description of another vehicle that had been reported of having run off the road. Upon stopping

the vehicle the traffic officer smelled marijuana and therefore conducted a search (United States,

2014). During the case hearing, the court found out that the officer had not violated the fourth

amendment by conducting the traffic stop and search. The court concluded that the officer had

reasonable suspicion to conduct the investigative stop. The case is similar to that of Mr.

Pemberton because the stop search was conducted after violating the law and therefore the

officer had the probable cause to conduct the traffic stop.

Conclusion

Indeed, there are various way by which a driver can commit a traffic offence including

reckless driving activities such as drifting among others. Based on the three cases above, the

officer Reynolds had reasonable suspicious to conduct the traffic stop. As a matter of fact, Mr.

PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCH 5

Pemberton had committed violated the Florida statute by driving recklessly and was therefore

liable for search. For that reason, the officer had probable cause to conduct the traffic stop.

PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCH 6

Reference

Woody, R. H. (2006). Search and seizure: The Fourth Amendment for law enforcement officers.

Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Florida, Florida, & American Legal Publishing Company. (1990). Florida statutes ... laws of

Florida & indexes. Tallahassee, Fla: American Legal Pub. Co.

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.

United States. (1996). Whren et al. v. United States: Certiorari to the United States Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. United States: publisher not identified.

United States. (2014). Prado et al v California: United States court of appeal. United States

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."