After reading the situation and being asked five questions, I have come up with answers for each one of them. In this paper I will let you know what the answers to each one of the questions are. I will also provide you with the reasoning on why I chose the answers that I did. First, I believe that Officer Smith did have reasonable suspicion to make the stop of the vehicle. In all actuality, any reason is good enough for an officer on patrol to pull you over. It does vary as far as the type of tape you have over the taillight goes. If you were to use transparent tape than it would make the light more visible.
Therefore, you would have less of a chance of being pulled over. However, if it wasn’t transparent tape than your light wouldn’t be as visible and you will have more of a chance of being pulled over. Next, I will cover on whether or not the pat-down of the driver was legal. As far as the pat-down goes, it was legal. If an officer has any reason what so ever to believe that the suspect has a weapon than they may pat them down. In this case Officer Smith had every reason to believe that the suspect had a weapon with them. She had reasonable suspicion simply because of the description of the vehicle that she had pulled over.
The vehicle fit the description of a car that was involved in the killing of a fellow police officer the week before. With the car fitting the description, it gives her every reason to believe that the suspect may have a weapon in the vehicle with her. Third thing that will be covered is whether or not Officer Smith had exigent or immediate action circumstances to chase the vehicle. Once again, the answer to this question is yes there were circumstances that existed. The first one would have to be that the driver drove off immediately after being asked for a driver’s license and registration.
The driver had no right what so ever to drive away. Officer Smith did not dismiss or give the driver permission to drive away. Another reason would be simply because of the description of the vehicle. Now we move on to whether or not the gun was in plain view and if it was legally obtained. As far as the gun and it being in plain view goes, the answer is yes the gun was in plain view. The gun was in plain view because the glove compartment was already wide open when Officer Smith saw it. She didn’t have to move anything to have a view of the gun, therefore it was in plain view.
As far as the gun being legally obtained the answer to that is also yes. In order for it to be legally obtained it just needs to be in the view of the officer somewhere where the officer has a legal right to be. Officer Smith had every right to be inside the vehicle. The last question I will be answering is if the baggie of marijuana will be admissible evidence. The answer to this question is also yes. With the car being at the scene of an accident, maybe even a crime scene, Officer Smith had legal access to everything that was there.
Originally she just went to get the purse to retrieve some sort of identification of the suspect. While in the process of retrieving some sort of identification, she found the marijuana. Therefore, I feel it will be admissible evidence. Now we have discussed all five questions that I said we would in the beginning. I hope that I have provided you with all the information you were looking for. After reading all of the answers that I have provided I hope that you have learned something from what I have said.