The Rules of Law Enforcement

Dale Comerie

Ivan Biss

Introduction to Criminal Justice

Wednesday, 6 October 2010

 Comerie, page 1

Part I

I feel that the police did conduct a lawful search and seizure and the suspect’s Fourth

Amendment rights were not violated. The police had been investigating robberies in a specific area in

which digital cameras, iPods, CDs, and computer games were on the list of stolen items. In the middle of

summer, the month of August, is usually the warmest month of the year, and the detectives see a man

walking down the street, in a heavy coat which was odd, in and of itself, and the suspect was coming out

of an electronic store. Once the man was stopped and the officers were talking to him, he was

searched and the police found a concealed weapon and electronic equipment at which point the suspect

was read his Miranda rights and taken to the police station. To me, the police did what they were

suppose to do, they were observant enough to notice the person coming from the direction of an

electronic store, although he only matched the height description of the suspect, he was dressed

inappropriately due to the time of year and the weather. The police informed the suspect of his

Miranda rights prior to the interrogation, so to me, that means the suspect could have informed the

detectives he had nothing to say and requested a lawyer. The Miranda rights inform the suspect that he

has the right to remain silent and have an attorney present during him/her being questioned. If he/she

cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to them without charge prior to questioning.

Part II

The police obtained an arrest warrant for the suspect, but when they arrived at the home where

the suspect resided, he was not there. The door was answered by a fourteen year old girl and the police

advised her it was important for them to enter the home. The girl, being only 14 years old, probably not

sure what was going on, she let the police into the house to search for evidence. They searched the

house for evidence which included the living room, the couch, kitchen and the cabinets. They found
 Comerie, page 2

bags of marijuana and pills of which, they were unable to identify, but no electronic equipment. The

police did find a digital camera and computer games still in the packaging in the suspects’ garage. My

question, was the garage attached to the house, and if not, would this be considered part of the house?

The suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The police informed a fourteen year old

child that it was important for them to enter the home. Unsure of what to do, the girl nodded but did

not give verbal consent. To have a valid search, you must have the intelligence to know what is going

on, which the girl did not have. In most states the legal age of consent is 18 or 21 depending on where

you live; at the age of fourteen, it was clear the child did not know what to do, but the detectives knew

what they were doing requesting to come into the home without an adult present. When the suspect

returned home, he was informed of the details in the arrest warrant nothing about a search warrant. He

was also not informed of his Miranda rights. He was arrested based on the discovered evidence, which

was marijuana and pills. Did the suspect have a prescription for the marijuana for medicinal purposes?

Was the camera and computer games have been purchased and meant to be given as a gift to

someone? The scope of a search warrant is the area within the suspects’ immediate control or reach, so

this was not a valid search. The police also stated they did not find any electronic equipment detailed in

the robberies. Upon finding nothing, they should have left the premises’ or waited outside the home

until the suspect returned and requested entrance into the home from the adult. I consider this to be

an unreasonable search with probable cause.