response to discussion post minimum 100 words 54

You basically just responding to the student. Whether you agree or disagree with the statement.

Student paper down below:

At first glance, this situation seems like a violation of the Fourth Amendment. George is routinely stopped on the highway based on profiling. However, simple questioning of an individual by a law enforcement officer is not specifically protected by the Constitution. Additionally, the scenario does not explain whether George committed traffic violations in any or most of the stops. Violations would completely change the scenario in the favor of the county. George could make a case against the department for profiling, however policy seems to dictate in this situation legitimate rationale for the stops. That case would involve profiling, based on behavior and presentation. However, it seems like it is a waste of time on the part of the department based on targeting the same individual repeatedly. If the policy was in effect based on the above criteria, it would absolutely be the right of the Highway Patrol, or local Sherriff to rebuke their officers that failed to stop George during his visits, when the officers possessed the ability and capability to do so. If behavior, aside from policy, allowed George to continue through the area unimpeded, further information would be required to be provided. As previously stated, if George’s travels through the county were frequent enough that the department would know who George is, it would be acceptable to avoid the stops to reduce the impact on the community, George, and the officers. Those stops would be a poor use of the officer’s time and resources. From the part of a trainee, it is completely legitimate to question the officer regarding his reasoning for allowing George to continue. It is within the trainee’s responsibility to question for the purposes of learning. The return trip is an entirely different question. It involves an assumed unwarranted search of George’s property. The Fourth Amendment states that warrants must be specific to time and place. Without a warrant, I believe that that stop is illegitimate. Furthermore, such activity should be rebuked by the department. In promoting behavior to a department, the leadership should focus on specific actions to emulate rather than numbers or effects. From a legal perspective, the Government holds that a warrant to search a vehicle is impractical based on the time and place requirement for a warrant, per United States v. Chadwick (1977). Additionally, in New York v. Class (1986), an automobile exception was conferred based on the lessened expectation of privacy in motor vehicles. Later, State v. Bickerstaff (1999) found that expectation of contraband based on smell emanating from a vehicle (alcohol) was not sufficient cause to search the vehicle (Rues & Brown, 2009). In the situation provided, George only looked like a potential drug dealer, which would render the vehicle search likely not in accordance with legal strictures.

Looking for a similar assignment? Our writers will offer you original work free from plagiarism. We follow the assignment instructions to the letter and always deliver on time. Be assured of a quality paper that will raise your grade. Order now and Get a 15% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"