Determining Whether to Use Drug Evidence

¶ … Motion to Suppress Drug Evidence in a Case During a regular traffic police check, a criminal defendant was stopped by law enforcement personnel after he was observed speeding. A computer check indicated that the criminal defendant had an outstanding misdemeanor warrant for his arrest. While being arrested, a marijuana joint fell from his pocket and prompted the police officer to search his car. The law enforcement officer found additional illegal drugs following the search on the defendant's car.

The warrant information regarding the outstanding misdemeanor was eventually found to be incorrect in the computer system and subsequently dismissed. The criminal defendant has now filed a motion to suppress the drug evidence. As a state court judge, the determination on this motion to suppress the drug evidence requires an analysis of the case facts and legal provisions relating to the issue.

When the police stop a criminal defendant for an illegal offense like speeding, the officer is basically stopping the suspect to issue him a valid ticket for a valid crime. This action does not give the police officer the independence or right to conduct a search on the suspect's vehicle without additional probable cause for the search or permission from the suspected criminal to do so.

The Fourth Amendment to the American Constitution gives individual citizens the right or freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures ("What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?" n.d.). However, this constitutional provision does not guarantee against all searches and seizures except those that are regarded unreasonable based on the law. In essence, a search or seizure is only reasonable or legal if there is probable cause to show that the suspect has committed or is committing a criminal offense.

The determination of the motion to suppress the drug evidence requires examining whether the search and seizure carried out by the police officer was unreasonable, especially with regards to his actions were justifiable and strongly linked to the underlying circumstances. During a regular traffic stop, the police officer may carry out various activities including asking for the driver's license and running a computer check ("State v. Bradshaw," n.d.).

After producing a valid driver's license and proof of entitlement to operate the car, the police must allow the driver to proceed without any further delay for extra questioning unless reasonable suspicion of another offense emerges. Based on these facts, the police officer did not err in conducting the search, which contributed to identifying additional drug evidence. The police's actions were justifiable because the outstanding misdemeanor arrest of the criminal defendant and the marijuana joint from his pocket provided reasonable evidence for the defendant's arrest.

While the warrant information was subsequently found to be inaccurate, the police had reasonable suspicion that the suspect was involved in another offense. Actually, the warrant information provided reasonable suspicion of the suspect's involvement in another crime and justified the officer's decision to arrest him. The defendant's argument for suppressing the drug evidence is the fact that the arrest was wrong because of inaccurate warrant information. The inaccurate warrant information that led to the suspect's arrest and eventual discovery of the drug evidence implies.