Robbery: causes, prevention, and legal consequences

Robbery Scenario

In this particular scenario, the police stopped a driver based upon the fact that the driver matched the description of the cashier who was the victim of the robbery and the driver had an Alabama student parking sticker (the store's robber was wearing a cap and a t-shirt from this university). The suspect was not speeding when the license was obtained, it should be noted. But the actions of the officer were consistent with stop-and-identify laws which permit police to ask suspects for licenses or other identification.

Supreme Court has generally not looked favorably upon stop-and-identify laws when they have been under its review. In the case of Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), one of the most recent stop-and-identify cases, the statute was deemed "unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a 'credible and reliable' identification" (Kolender v. Lawson, 1983). However, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, "Nevada's 'stop and identify' statute" which "requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself" was upheld by the court (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 2004). Presuming the state in which the robbery occurred had such a statute, the demand of the suspect to obtain the license would be considered 'suspicious circumstances' given the fact his description matched that of the clerk, his proximity to the robbery, and other identifying markers.

There are many exceptions to the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and protections of citizens' rights to privacy. However, the Fourth Amendment does extend to a "law enforcement officer's physical apprehension or 'seizure' of a person, by way of a stop or arrest" and searches of personal property without a warrant where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy such as a home, clothing, or purse ("Search and seizure," 2014). In this instance, a photograph was taken of the suspect without his apparent permission by the police and without a warrant. This was clearly not an instance of attempting to protect the immediate public safety by a warrantless search out of good faith. But arguably there was a "a belief rising to the level of 'probable cause' that an individual has committed a crime" ("Search and seizure," 2014). Furthermore, security cameras are not Fourth Amendment violations because the suspect has no expectation of privacy within a store. The photo obtained of the suspect by the police after stopping the suspect would likely become a subject of appellate review since it could be argued the suspect had an expectation of privacy given his location outside the store in a secluded area. But this would unlikely be upheld given that an expectation of privacy is usually confined to areas such as one's home, hotel room, car, and other areas deemed 'personal space,' and the suspect was not in this type of location when the photo used in the lineup was obtained ("Search and seizure," 2014).