Traffic Stop Case
Did Officer Smith have reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop of this vehicle?
As we examine this case and more confrontational moments occur between the officer and the suspect, all events remain in question largely on the basis of this initial question. This is because ultimately, it was revealed by due process that the basic cause for the traffic stop was a suspected broken taillight which was ultimately in proper working order. This denotes that probable cause may not have existed to justify the encounter between the officer and the suspect. That said, 'probable cause' is a higher standard than that required for a routine traffic stop absent the intent for a search of the suspect or vehicle. Here, reasonable suspicion is sufficient, though given the working condition of the taillight, it is not certain that this necessary existed either. According to Tennessee v Brother (2010), a similar case involving a search and seizure which was preempted by a broken taillight offers reason to believe that the officer in this case did not have a legal right to pull the suspect over. According to Baker Associates (2010), in Tennessee v. Brotherton, it was incumbent upon the court to determine "if a police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle based on the fact that the taillight was not in "good condition" because it was projecting a glaring or dazzling light. In this case, the defendant had broken the taillight and attempted to repair it with red repair tape. The intermediate appellate court held that the taillight was in proper working condition in that it provided proper warning and
1) Using this as our basis, we may deduce that the officer in question, though acting on a good-faith assumption that a taillight was broken, may not have had cause for 'reasonable suspicion' sufficient to justify the traffic stop. That said, the case does not articulate exactly what conditions caused the officer to mistake a functional taillight for a broken one and further examination may find that while not broken, the taillight was altered sufficiently that 'reasonable suspicion' was present to justify the traffic stop.
2.Was the "pat-down" of the driver legal?
Putting aside the discrepancy over the state of the suspect's taillight, we consider the question of the 'pat-down.' Here, the officer determines to frisk the suspect because her car is consistent with the description of one recently involved in the roadside murder of a fellow officer. It is thus that the officer determines she must, for reasons of her own safety, take this precautionary step. According to the case of Terry v. Ohio, 'reasonable suspicion' is the basic threshold for pat-downs as well. Here, our findings denote that "generally, law enforcement officers will perform frisks at their discretion, regardless of the 'reasonable suspicion' standard…
