A police officer hears a rumor that Dave is selling illegal drugs out of his house. One day while patrolling the neighborhood, the officer sees Dave walking down the street. The officer approaches Dave and tells him he is worried about him and asks permission to search his house.
QUESTION
This is a homework assignment you do not have to do a title page.
Question:
A police officer hears a rumor that Dave is selling illegal drugs out of his house. One day while patrolling the neighborhood, the officer sees Dave walking down the street. The officer approaches Dave and tells him he is worried about him and asks permission to search his house. Dave asks the officer if he has to allow him to search his house. The officer responds by telling Dave that if he doesn’t, he will go attempt to get a search warrant. Based on this, Dave consents to allow the police officer to search his house, and the officer finds over one hundred baggies of drugs. Are the drugs admissible at a criminal trial? Why or why not? Explain in detail and support your position.
INSTRUCTIONS: APA Style, 330 words, please use attached references, use two references
See attached and below references
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/413/266
ANSWER
Admissibility of Drugs Found in Dave’s House: Analyzing Consent and Coercion
Introduction
In this scenario, a police officer receives a rumor about Dave selling illegal drugs. The officer encounters Dave, expresses concern, and requests permission to search his house. Dave, unsure of his rights, asks if he is obligated to allow the search. The officer responds by suggesting he will obtain a search warrant if Dave refuses. This essay will explore whether the drugs found during the search are admissible at a criminal trial, considering the legal implications of consent, coercion, and search warrant requirements.
Thesis Statement
The drugs found in Dave’s house are likely inadmissible at a criminal trial due to the coercive nature of the officer’s response to Dave’s inquiry about his rights. This conclusion is supported by examining the principles of voluntary consent, the coercive effect of the officer’s statement, and the potential violation of Fourth Amendment rights.
Discussion
Voluntary Consent
Voluntary consent is a key factor in determining the admissibility of evidence obtained through a search. For consent to be valid, it must be given freely and voluntarily, without coercion or duress. In this case, Dave’s consent could be called into question due to the officer’s response to his inquiry, which potentially created a coercive environment.
Coercion and Duress
The officer’s statement, implying that he would seek a search warrant if Dave refused consent, introduces an element of coercion. Coercion occurs when a person is compelled to act against their will due to threats, implied or explicit. The officer’s statement may have influenced Dave’s decision to consent, fearing the consequences of a search warrant being obtained.
Fourth Amendment Protections
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Obtaining a search warrant typically requires a showing of probable cause, which was not established in this scenario. Dave’s consent may have been influenced by the officer’s threat of obtaining a warrant, undermining the voluntary nature of his agreement and potentially violating his Fourth Amendment rights.
Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
The exclusionary rule aims to deter illegal police conduct by excluding evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights. If Dave’s consent is deemed coerced or involuntary, the drugs found during the search could be considered fruit of the poisonous tree, meaning they derive from an unlawful action and should be excluded from trial under the exclusionary rule.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the drugs found in Dave’s house may be inadmissible at a criminal trial due to the coercive nature of the officer’s response to Dave’s inquiry. The potential coercion and violation of Dave’s Fourth Amendment rights raise concerns about the voluntary nature of his consent. If Dave’s consent is deemed coerced or involuntary, the drugs may be excluded under the exclusionary rule. Thus, the admissibility of the drugs would likely be challenged in court based on the circumstances surrounding the officer’s response to Dave’s question about his rights.
