Federal District Court reviewed and denied a motion to suppress narcotics seized during a traffic stop.
- Case: Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981)
- Case briefs will be written in the following format (mandatory):
- Title and Citation (e.g. Jones v. Smith, 123 F.3d 456 (11th Cir. 2004))
- Type of Action (e.g. civil suit for money damages for violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment.)
- Facts of the Case (Discuss relevant facts; what happened? Why is this matter in court?)
- Contentions of the Parties (What are the best arguments favoring each party?)
- Smith argues that:
- Jones argues that:
- Issue(s) (The issue relevant to the subjects studied in the module in which it is assigned, e.g. Were Jones’ rights under the First Amendment violated when he was fired for speaking at a political rally?)
- Decision (How did the court rule on that issue?)
- Reasoning (Why did the court rule the way it did? This is the most important part of the case.)
- Rule of Law (What one legal point do we take from this case?)
- Length: Should not exceed 2 pages.
- Example of how it should look
CRJ 550 Legal Issues in Criminal Justice Administration
- TITLE AND CITATION: United States v Ralph Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 122 S. Ct. 744, 151 L. Ed. 2d 740 (2002).
TYPE OF ACTION:Federal District Court reviewed and denied a motion to suppress narcotics seized during a traffic stop. The plaintiff, Ralph Arvizu, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, which suppressed the narcotics violation. The case was granted certiorari by the United States Supreme Court of appeals concluded that Stoddard has significant reasonable suspicion to believe that Arvizu had and was engaged in illegal activity. Which considering the totality of the circumstances did not violate Arvizu’s Fourth Amendment right and that the border patrol agent formed a well-founded reasonable suspicion to effect an investigative traffic stop on the vehicle.
- FACTS OF THE CASE: On January 1998, the United States Border Patrol Agent Clinton Stoddard had been proactively patrolling the area of Douglas, Arizona. Agent Stoddard had been conducting checkpoints in the area where metal sensors are placed on rarely used roadways to aid in the detection of smuggling. Agent Stoddard had been notified that at approximately two in the afternoon that the sensors were tripped. Agent Stoddard responded to the area to investigate the disturbance; while doing so, he located a minivan leaving the area. Based on his training and experience, Agent Stoddard was aware that these types of vehicles are commonly used in smuggling operations. Agent Stoddard began to follow the minivan. While doing so, Agent Stoddard reported that the driver appeared to be abnormally stiff, and his glare remained on the roadway at all times. Agent Stoddard additionally noted that the three small children appeared to have their knees elevated as if they were standing on an item(s) on the floorboard while the children were waving at him in an awkward and rehearsed manner. While Agent Stoddard was following the vehicle, it signaled and abruptly turned down a roadway in an effort to avoid a border patrol checkpoint. Agent Stoddard notified dispatch and requested a vehicle registration check on the vehicle which resulted in being informed that it belonged to known suspected drug trafficking individuals. Based on the facts presented, Agent Stoddard conducted an investigative stop on the vehicle. The driver, Ralph Arvizu, gave verbal consent to Agent Stoddard to search the vehicle. During the said search, Agent Stoddard located 100 pounds of Marijuana throughout the cabin of the vehicle. Arvizu was subsequently arrested and charged with possession of Marijuana with the intent to distribute it. Arvizu argued during his trial that Agent Stoddard violated his Fourth Amendment and did not have reasonable suspicion to effect a legal stop on his vehicle. Ultimately, the District Court denied the motion and cited several factors which gave the Agent reasonable suspicion to effect a stop on his vehicle. The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling in favor of Arvizu, stating that the factors of the traffic stop offered little to no weight of suspicion, and the facts were not enough to effect a stop. Subsequently, the Supreme Court remanded the district court appeals decision
- CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES: Arvizu argued that the U.S. Border patrol agent, Agent Stoddard, had not created a well-founded reasonable suspicion to suspect that he or the occupants of the vehicle had been involved in criminal activity and/or warranted a stop. The District Court disagreed with the motion and denied the narcotics suppression.
- ISSUE: Did Border Patrol Agent Stoddard have articulable reasonable suspicion to effect a traffic stop on Arvizu and, in such, violate his Fourth Amendment Right?
- DECISION:The United District Court determined that the detention of Arviuz was lawful and the located narcotics would be admitted into evidence; however, the District Court of Appeals ruled against the Border Patrol agent, stating that he did not have specific articulable facts and circumstances to establish to effect a stop on the minivan. The Supreme Court disagreed with the ruling and upheld the stop.
- REASONING: In a unanimous decision delivered by Child Justice William H. Rehnquist upheld the reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment to effect a legal and lawful stop on Arvizu. Child Justice Rehnquist cited that Law Enforcement officers may conduct investigatory stops if the officer believes that criminal activity “may be afoot” (Pelic, 2003).
- RULE OF LAW:The Supreme Court has ruled in favor that the fourth amendment requires that the court’s opinion must encompass all views and take in account of the totality of the circumstance. Under the Fourth Amendment, it does not hinder or prohibit investigatory stops as long as the law enforcement officer has articulable facts and circumstances which lead to a reasonable suspicion
- Reference:Pelic, J. (2003). United States v. Arvizu: investigatory stops and the fourth amendment. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 93(4), 1033-1056. Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/v…U.S. v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2001) (United States Supreme Court January 15,2002) (WestLaw, Dist. File).
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we\'ll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.