Writing and research this term has shifted into “Persuasive Writing.” This means that rather then just presenting facts (and crying about the Blue Book), we are now advocating one side or the other (and crying about the Blue Book).
Anyway, our professor has given us a case modeled on one that he actually defended and won. Of course, he’s made it even harder for us.
The basic premise:
Our Defendant was driving through an intersection westbound in his ‘79 Mustang. A police officer stopped at the northbound entry to the intersection observed shoulder restraints and that the defendant was not wearing them. He initiated a traffic stop based on suspicion of a seatbelt violation. While approaching the defendant’s vehicle, he observed him to buckle a lap belt. There were no shoulder belts for the front seat. He observed that the defendant appeared drunk, so he conducted field sobriety tests, which were failed. He then conducted a further search of the car and discovered a baggie of what turned out to be methamphetamine.
Also, unknown to the police officer, some guy down at the station, who’s been arrested for dealing meth, “cut a deal” by saying that our Defendant had recently purchased.
Now, to the layman, this is pretty open and shut, especially if you ignore the Constitution and let your fear/hatred/mistrust of drunk-driving meth dealers without seatbelts (and possibly drivers of ‘79 Mustangs) take hold. The only real defense is to claim that the initial traffic stop was illegal and suppressing the evidence – but even that is not particularly easy.
Anyway, I’m hoping he takes into account the severe handicap of the defense when he grades us, since half of the class is working with a “gimmie” case.
So, I’ll bite. I’m a layman, and this does sound open-and-shut. Is the physical evidence (the meth, specifically; the sobriety test seems like it’s bulletproof) inadmissible because the officer didn’t have cause to conduct a search of the vehicle? That is, based only on the seatbelt violation and intoxication?
Comment by Dan — 2/18/2005 @ 10:31 pm
That’s pretty much it:
If they could arrest him for DUI, they would search the car during impound, so the meth would be admissible.
If they saw him appear drunk during a routine traffic stop, they would have cause to give sobriety tests, which would be admissible.
If they had objectively articulable reasons to believe a crime was being committed, they could pull him over for a traffic stop.
…so really, I have to show that the stop based on him appearing to be violating a seatbelt law (which he actually was violating, by the way) was illegal. This would let me move to supress all of the evidence gained as a fruit of that stop.
Comment by Adam — 2/19/2005 @ 9:32 am