Investigatory+Stops

= Investigatory Stops = Also known as Pretextual Stops

toc Do the following for each of the cases listed 1) briefly describe the facts of the case (when, where, who, what happened) 2) explain the issue that is being challenged 3) what was the court's decision 4) what impact did this decision have (did it keep things the same; change what could be done; etc)

>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
 * ==//Whren v United States//==
 * 1. It was in 1993 between Michael A. Whren and James L. Brown and the United States. Michael A. Whren and James L. Brown were in a car when patrol officers in an unmarked police car was driving around, and upon seeing the officers Michael A. Whren and James L. Brown sped away and this made the officers pursue them without probable cause.
 * 2. The issue is that the officers were accused of violating the 4th amendment by not having a probable cause to arrest them because the traffic stop was only a pretext to investigate possible drug crimes.
 * 3. The courts decision was to convict the two offenders anyway.
 * 4. Everything was pretty much the same because the court didnt see it as an unreasonable search, seeing as they did find 2 bags of cocaine.
 * ==//Ohio v Robinette//==
 * 1. It was in 1966 between Robinette and the Ohio Police. Robinette was stopped for speeding when an officer asked if he had any drugs or weapons in the car and Robinette denied having any, but the officer decided to search his car anyway and found a small amount of marijuana and a tablet of ecstasy and was then arrested.
 * 2. The issue is that Robinette wanted to suppress the evidence and then pleaded no contest to the charge. The Ohio District of Appeal reversed the charge saying that it was an illegal detention.
 * 3. The courts decision was to further investigate the case because for traffic stops, officers are supposed to let the driver go before they engage them in consensual interrogation or search their car.
 * 4. This made the courts look further into the fourth amendment which is based around reasonableness, and this stop and arrest was unreasonable.
 * ==//Maryland v Wilson//==
 * February 19, 1997,
 * MARYLAND, PETITIONER v. JERRY LEE WILSON
 * June evening 7:30 pm
 * Officer saw Wilson speeding 65 mph in a 55 mph area and tried pulling him over but had to pursue him for a bit until he pulled over. With pulling him over, the passenger came out as well only to show they were obtaining crack in the car as well as speeding.
 * The issue that’s is that if the car is already being pulled over for speeding that an officer can definitely ask the driver to step out of the car and having that extend to the passenger which it should because since they were already being stopped for a speeding violation, once they made that full stop they both have no 4th Amendment in order for the safety of the police officer in case these people in the car were about to assault him.
 * The court decided that the driver would get arrested not for speeding but for obtaining cocaine and assumption that he was distributing. Maryland urges us to go further and hold that an officer may forcibly detain a passenger for the entire duration of the stop.
 * The impact of this case hasn’t done much other than having the offer being able to forcibly detain a passenger for the entire duration of the stop them affecting not only the driver but others involved
 * ==//State Police v Sitz//==
 * Where? Michigan
 * Who? Michigan State Police and the Saginaw County Sheriff's
 * What? It is a Public Sobriety checkpoint held in random state highways trying to remove all drunk drivers from the road.
 * When? Any time, any day, only went on for one day
 * Why? To remove all drunk drivers and take them into custody
 * People are complaining that their 4th amendment is being violated
 * It didn’t have a listed ending date or if it still continues but Michigan Courts agreed that the Sobriety Checks lean in favor of the government instead of the people.
 * It didn’t really have an impact on the drivers.