The Wardlow Case Study

843 Words4 Pages
While Charles may have an argument that the principle in Robinson shouldn’t apply, his motion would fail due to the police having subsequent arguments. One such argument is following the Wardlow case. Once the police take into consideration the totality of the circumstances, they are allowed to conduct a frisk, similar to what was allowed by the Court in the Wardlow case. If the court in this case does not agree with the police’s justification under Wardlow, the police could also point to Terry v. Ohio as reasoning to conduct this search of Charles. In Terry, the police noticed two men walking up to a storefront and peering inside before walking away several times. The police officer deemed these actions suspicious and approached the…show more content…
The Court ruled that if a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime may occur then the officer may make an initial inquiry, and then if the officer believes there to be a threat they may conduct a search for weapons. A frisk is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment, therefore it must be determined if the search is reasonable. Due to Charles giving false information to the police it is reasonable that the police would want to conduct a search to try and determine Charles’ real name. It is possible that Charles would argue that if the court in this case takes a view up under Terry then the search should just be limited to finding a way to properly identify him, and that narcotics officers should know the difference between a wallet and a hypodermic needle. This would be the proper viewpoint if the totality of the circumstances as outlined above, including now Charles giving false identification, would raise the level of reasonable suspicion to one that the court would view the entire search of Charles’ person is allowed under the Fourth Amendment, in accordance with the scope of either Terry, Wardlow,…show more content…
Charles may dispute this search based on Chimel v. California and Arizona v. Gant . In Chimel, the police suspected a man of a burglary of the coin shop, while he was at work the police showed up to his house and his wife let them inside. When he returned home, the police arrested him and then without consent or a warrant they conducted a complete search of the house. During this search they found a number of coins. The Supreme Court held that a search incident to an arrest could only cover the areas in possession or control of the person whom was arrested. Any search outside of this immediate area of control is not justified; therefore the Court found that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment due to it being unreasonable. Charles will try to use this case in conjunction with Arizona v. Gant, applied the Chimel rule of searching only in an area of immediate control to a car search. In Gant, a man arrested for driving with a suspended license, was placed under arrest, and then put in the back of the police car. The police then searched Gant’s car and found a gun and cocaine. Gant challenged this search and the Supreme Court sided with him applying the rule in Chimel, stating that police can search an arrestee’s vehicle only if the arrestee was in reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of search or if there is reason to believe that crime

    More about The Wardlow Case Study

      Open Document