Fourth Amendment Issue Essay

Bailey v. United States In this paper I leave alone be discussing the case of Bailey v. United states. First we volition be looking to see every last(predicate) the circumstances of this case to nail a clear(p) view of the issue at hand. whence well cover what the issue is for this case, and why it would be an issue in accordance to the quartern Amendment. I will make a stance in this paper well-nigh if I think the issue at hand is or isnt a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decisions of all the courts will be looked at, and t heritor reasonings.These sort of cases argon classical to the ever living and breathing document that is the Constitution because cases like hese help change, form, and modify (so to speak) the rights that we are afforded according to the United States. On July 28th, 2005 the jurisprudence of Suffolk County received information via a confidential informant that he had purchased medicates. The drug deal was for the amount of six grams of divulge cocaine. During the drug deal the informant draw that he had seen a firearm in the flatcar.The flat was separate space ofa stand located in the root cellar of 103 Lake find in Wyandanch, New York. The information gave supercharge details as such. The exact translation of the person he had urchased the guns from a heavy put in black male with short named cognize as Polo. Oustice. org, page 2) The informant overly gave the exact details of the type and translation of the gun that he had seen in the apartment which was a handgun. On the same daytime the police went to the Judge on claver to obtain a authorisation.after proving the credibleness of the informant they were able to obtain a no-knock warrant. A no-knock warrant is given when in that respect is an idea that the police going to fly the coop a warrant might be harmed or if there is a go on that the conclusion expected to be ollected could be stamp outed. The attempt warrant specified the basement apar tment as the location to be expected, and items to be retrieved were the handgun and whatsoever ammunition to go along with it.A star Detective was given the task of nonice the apartment dapple the warrant was creation obtained to ensure that the blank spacers that were going to guide the warrant would know if any one was in the apartment, and if so how to a greater ex cardinalt. The affiant then went to the scene while the look for unit got clear to execute the warrant. While they were watching the polarity the two of them itnessed two individuals that could meet the verbal description of the the informants description of Polo exit from the basement apartment and get into a car.The two reachicers followed the car fora fewer blocks before depicting over the vehicle. later on the car was stop the officers asked the two occupants to maltreat out of the vehicle and proceeded to pat them down. After the two identified themselves, the officers confirmed the device d river was the Polo, and the occupant was a friend he was driving home. During the stop the officer searched the pockets and put a set of headstones in Polos front pocket. Polo explained the keys were to his apartment.The officer then office stated that he was being detained not arrested incident to the search warrant of the apartment. The officer put the two men into a patrol car that was called in and they were determined to the apartment. The second surveillance officer drove chisel Polos car back to the apartment while the depressionly drove the hole-and-corner(prenominal) car. By the time they all reached the apartment again the search unit had already entered the home, executing the warrant. A gun and drugs were in plain view when they had entered the apartment. It was then that the Polo and Middleton were arrested.The keys that were raise in the front pocket were to a fault seized incident to his arrest along with two addition guns outside the one in plain view, many rounds of ammunition, a warmer proof vest, 40 grams of crack cocaine,39 grams of powderize cocaine, drug paraphernalia, and several documents with the petitioners name on them. Several boxes of personal items that indicated somebody had late moved into the apartment. The police officers also had tried the keys they had seized from Polo and set in motion that one of the keys opened the admission to the apartment.It was in April 2006 that Bailey, Polo, was indicted on the multiple counts for having both drugs and firearms in his apartment. The questioned issue here elicit be clarified by this avouchment presented in the government brief. Whether the Fourth Amendment permitted police officers, incident to the execution of a reasoned search warrant for a deleterious weapon at a semiprivate residence, to detain an occupant who leave the immediate vicinity of the premises, when the cargo area was conducted as short as reasonably practicable. (americanbar. org).The issue seems to be the fact they the pair were ot in the remove vicinity of the place to be searched when they were ab initio stopped and detained, nor was the warrant being punish when they were pulled over. The key and the statements were the only things that could absolutely plug into the petitioner to the apartment and the drugs and firearms found indoors it. Bailey moved to suppress the evidence of the key that was seized, and his conversation with the two officers during his stop downstairs the argument that they had illegally detained him.The court state this was a legal stop victimization the case of Michigan v. Summers (452 U. S. 692 1981)) as an account as to why the police had a right to detain Bailey. in that location are tercet points to the Summers case that explain why an officer may detain someone during execution of a search warrant those being officer safety, aiding the completion of the search, and preventing escapism of stairs of stairs of steps if incrimi nating evidence is found (ohioattorneygeneral. gov).The first issue of officer safety is considering the fact that multitude within the residence may being riled and rise up and try to harm the officers in causa to conceal or destroy evidence (law. cornell. edu). Secondly the dea of aiding officers to complete the search claims those that would be detained, if they were not occupants might wander somewhat the premises, and there is the potential for interference with the execution of the search warrant. They can hide or destroy evidence, seek to distract the officers, or only get in the way. (law. ornell. edu) Lastly on this seemingly 3 pronged streak when it comes to the Summers case, is the prevention of flight if evidence is found. It is because of the prosecution using this cases three pronged try on to determine the rigourousness of etaining someone during a search that I take a stand on the side of the defense and say that the detention of Bailey is something that un lawful and violated his fourth extra car is was not. there are many reasons why, but I can manifestly look at the three prong turn up and clearly shred two of their prongs to pieces.There was no real reason for them to pull Bailey over after he left field his home and because they did the key they found on his person during the pat down and the justifications he made to the officers are something that should grant been left out of the trial. When it comes o the first prong of the Summers test in comparison of the Bailey case it is besotted to even believe that from nearly a mile down the road that Bailey would control been able to affect the safety of the officers.It was argued that if they had stopped Bailey just outside the apartment people within the apartment could get to been notified of the police and they could have been ready to harm the officers, since it was surmise that weapons were in the home. This is true, however if this were the case why did they not simply stop him as soon as he got around the corner? The second art of the three is the fact that there could be an voice where those in the home being searched could go around and destroy evidence or even hide it.I check over that the police can do their concern further more effectively, and search more thoroughly, if they dont have to persist an eye on those inside a home. However how can this even reach to Bailey? Bailey and the other person that had been in his house were no longer in it. There was no threat that Bailey nor his companion would have been able to hinder the execution of the search warrant. So to me this prong absolutely does not pply in this case. The final result of the Summers prong is that the person in question could become a flight issue if there were evidence found during the search.This is true, Bailey could have fled and become a flight risk if someone were to tip him off that there were cops searching his apartment. However, this is true of any search war rant ever. This is too tolerant ofa point when it comes to the detention of people. Does this mean that ten miles across town if a search warrant is being executed that they have a right to find you wheresoever you are until they are finish with heir search? If not circumscribed, the rationale of preventing flight would Justify, for instance, detaining a suspect who is 10 miles away, ready to board a plane.The interest in preventing escape from police cannot extend this far without downstairsmining the usual rules for arrest based on probable cause or a brief stop for questioning under standards derived from Terry. (law. cornell. edu) So in closing I absolutely agree that the detention of Bailey in this case was unlawful and one one C percent violated his fourth amendment rights. When this ase first went to court this petition to withhold the keys and confession was denied by the District court, and The Second band agreed on this finding.