Law Library, Jrank.org ^ | Undated | Christopher Slobogin
Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2011 8:21:46 PM by DariusBane
Probably the most controversial aspect of modern search and seizure law is the concept of “aggressive patrolling,” a means of using stop and frisk authority to make the police presence felt in certain neighborhoods, remove weapons and drugs from the streets, and turn targets into informants. Because arrests are rarely made in this context, the exclusionary rule is almost useless as a deterrent. An analogous strategy occurs in connection with traffic stops.
Because there are so many traffic laws—governing speed, turning signals, equipment, and the like—the police can stop almost any driver for a violation, and then search the car if something suspicious is spied in plain view, consent is obtained, or if the occupant can be arrested for a custodial offense (which the Court has held authorizes search of the entire car’s interior).
Although such traffic stops might serve merely as a pretext to check out the officer’s “hunch” that the occupant is engaged in more serious crime, the Supreme Court has held that the officer’s hidden agenda is irrelevant to Fourth Amendment analysis. Some view these police techniques as necessary tactics in the war on drugs and gangs, while others believe they are reminiscent of the general warrants that gave rise to the Fourth Amendment in the first place.
(Excerpt) Read more at law.jrank.org ...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note:
The 'Reader Responses; shown on many posts/articles are almost always worthwhile reading.
Often, the comments by readers enhance the posted article greatly, and are informative and interesting.
Hopefully, all will remember to read the reader comments, and post their own as well.
Thanx
*****