Read the fact pattern selection on Appendix E.
Appendix E
Arrest Topic
In March of 2005, the Tempe Police Department arrested Jeff Barnes for possession of heroin near the intersection of McClintock and Lakeshore, around 10:00 p.m.—his second arrest near this area in the past few months. Pending trial, the court released him, mandating he was not to come within two blocks of the location.
In late July of 2005, Officer Christina Pace was patrolling this same area around 10:30 p.m. The officer located Mr. Barnes sitting in his vehicle within the area of McClintock and Lakeshore, and called for backup. As Officer Pace pulled behind the vehicle, Mr. Barnes attempted to leave the area, unsuccessfully. He was apprehended and placed under arrest; handcuffs were used and Miranda rights were read.
Conducting a search of Mr. Barnes’s person, Officer Pace found a small bag of marijuana, lose change, and some cigarettes. Another officer’s search of Barnes’s vehicle yielded a small bag of heroin and syringes, which were found after prying open a locked glove compartment. The officers searched the area around the vehicle and subsequent block while Barnes remained in custody. Finding no other evidence, Officer Pace transported Mr. Barnes to the stationhouse.
write 350- to 700-word response to the reading. Be sure to address the following:
Identify types of authorized arrests; differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable
police action, during and before an arrest; determine if the arrest is a proper seizure of
persons under the Fourth Amendment. Is the evidence collected by the arresting officer
admissible or non-admissible? Explain your answer.
What is the question?
To provide a 350- to 700-word response to the reading, we will analyze the fact pattern and address the given questions.
In this case, Jeff Barnes was arrested for possession of heroin near the intersection of McClintock and Lakeshore by the Tempe Police Department. This was his second arrest near the same location within a few months. Pending trial, the court released him on the condition that he should not come within two blocks of the location.
In late July 2005, Officer Christina Pace was patrolling the same area around 10:30 p.m. She located Mr. Barnes sitting in his vehicle within the area and called for backup. As Officer Pace pulled behind the vehicle, Mr. Barnes attempted to leave the area without success and was apprehended and placed under arrest. Handcuffs were used, and his Miranda rights were read.
After the arrest, Officer Pace conducted a search of Mr. Barnes and found a small bag of marijuana, loose change, and some cigarettes in his possession. Another officer searched Barnes's vehicle and found a small bag of heroin and syringes after prying open the locked glove compartment. The officers also searched the area around the vehicle and the subsequent block, but no other evidence was found. Officer Pace then transported Mr. Barnes to the stationhouse.
Now, let's address the questions presented:
1. Identify types of authorized arrests; differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable police action, during and before an arrest:
Authorized arrests typically fall under two categories: arrests with a warrant and arrests without a warrant. A warrant is obtained from a judge or magistrate based on probable cause. In this case, the arrest of Mr. Barnes appears to be an arrest without a warrant since no mention of a warrant is given.
Acceptable police action during an arrest includes the use of reasonable force, such as handcuffing, and the reading of Miranda rights to inform the arrested individual of their rights. Unacceptable police action would involve excessive force or any action that violates the rights of the individual being arrested.
2. Determine if the arrest is a proper seizure of persons under the Fourth Amendment:
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring that they be based on probable cause. In this case, Mr. Barnes was arrested for possession of heroin, suggesting that there was probable cause for the arrest. Additionally, the fact that this was Mr. Barnes's second arrest near the same location adds credibility to the arrest. However, it's important to note that the arrest should be analyzed within the context of state laws and any specific regulations governing arrests in Tempe, Arizona.
3. Is the evidence collected by the arresting officer admissible or non-admissible? Explain your answer:
The evidence collected by Officer Pace during the search of Mr. Barnes's person, which included a small bag of marijuana, loose change, and cigarettes, is likely to be admissible in court. The officer conducted the search after the arrest while Mr. Barnes was in custody. It is a common practice for officers to search individuals upon arrest to ensure their safety and to prevent the disposal of any evidence.
However, the evidence found in Mr. Barnes's vehicle, specifically the small bag of heroin and syringes, may raise questions regarding its admissibility. The officers pried open a locked glove compartment during the search. This action may be interpreted as an invasive search without a warrant or valid justification. This aspect of the search could potentially be deemed a violation of Mr. Barnes's Fourth Amendment rights, which could render the evidence collected inadmissible in court.
In summary, the arrest of Mr. Barnes appears to be a proper seizure under the Fourth Amendment, given the circumstances and probable cause. The evidence collected from his person is likely to be admissible, but the evidence obtained from the vehicle may be considered non-admissible due to the potentially illegal search of the locked glove compartment. It's essential to note that the admissibility of evidence is ultimately determined by the court, taking into account the specific details and context of the case.