Probable Cause Article Summary
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Phoenix *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
/315
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by PrivateWhaleMaster667
Running head: [SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 1
Probable Cause Article Summary
University of Phoenix
CJA:315/Criminal Procedure
Gary Weil
10 February 2024
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 2
Probable Cause Article Summary
On August 4, 2021, Kyle A. Smart was arrested after police officers conducted a traffic stop which resulted in a warrantless search of his vehicle. This arrest led to Smart being charged with various crimes after drugs, drug paraphernalia, weapons in ammunition were found in the vehicle (New Jersey Courts, State v Kyle A. Smart). Two months prior to the arrest, officer Samantha Sutter had been informed of possible drug activity at a residence where the GMC was frequently spotted. After this, Officer Luis Taranto started surveillance in front of the condo the GMC had been spotted, which is where frequent narcotics transactions and other criminal activity occurred. Based on the information received by the CI, Taranto was able to identify the GMC truck that had been involved in many drug deals that was used by a drug dealer referred to as “Killer.” Taranto ran a search on “Killer” and found that they have multiple arrest warrants and felony convictions involving drugs (
State v. Kyle A. Smart, 2023). Once officers Taranto and Sutter followed the GMC to the residence where they suspected multiple drug users lived, both suspected that the defendant had been engaging in drug
deals. Considering the information that had been giving to the officers by the CI and the investigation they were conducting, officers and Sutter and Taranto determined they had. Enough
reasonable suspicion to perform an investigative stop. Once the GMC was pulled over by another
nearby officer, Taranto and a fourth officer patted down the driver. Though they found nothing incriminating, when the driver declined consent to the vehicle search, Taranto called for a canine to perform an exterior sniff. When the canine signaled that he smelled something, the officers searched the vehicle and found weapons, ammunition, drugs, and drug paraphernalia. The driver admitted to owning the contraband and was arrested and later charged with multiple crimes. This
then resulted in the case being argued in front of the Supreme Court of New Jersey to determine
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 3
if there was enough probable cause for a warrantless search of the GMC (
State v. Kyle A. Smart, 2023). Probable cause is defined as reasonable grounds for making a search on a person and their property. This means that there is a reasonable suspicion for believing that a crime has been committed, or that evidence of a crime is present at the time. This is what is generally needed to search someone’s private property in situations when a warrant is not had. That said, the law allows police officers to forgo a warrant only in unforeseeable or spontaneous circumstances. In Kyle’s case, officers stated that they had enough reasonable suspicion to search his vehicle based
on the information they previously gathered. While the canine signaling the presence of drugs establish probable cause to search the vehicle, the circumstances leading up to this were not unforeseeable or spontaneous. This is because officers Sutter and Taranto had already been given
information on him as well as surveilling the car. Moreover, even though it was not confirmed, they had enough suspicion and information to believe that a crime had been committed and they still failed to get a warrant.
A search warrant is a legal document that is typically issued by a judge that allows police officers to search a person, place, or car for criminal evidence. Not only is probable cause needed, but some type of proof that a crime has been or will be committed in that location. The warrant should include the specific property that officers can search, when they are allowed to search it, and what can be seized. It is also important to note that judges are allowed to put restrictions on the warrants they grant. That said, there are a few exceptions to the warrant requirement such as an investigatory stop or if the officers are given consent. An investigatory stop is a limited, non-intrusive detention, which requires reasonable suspicion. At this time an officer may briefly stop a person and make inquiries to confirm or dispelled or suspicions. This is
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 4
what Officers Sutter and Taranto were doing when they pulled Smart over however, at the time they had no reasonable, spontaneous suspicion. When argued in front of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, it was found that the investigative stop was deliberate, planned, and connected with the reason for the subsequent seizure of evidence (
State v. Kyle A. Smart, 2023).
An exception that could have severely impacted this case would have been if the contraband was in plain sight. For example, had the officers seen the defendant coming out of the
home or his car with contraband in hand, the officers could have stepped in, seized the evidence, as well as arrested him and charged him. Since this was not the case and their suspicion was built
from prior knowledge, there was nothing spontaneous about the investigatory stop. In light of the
facts presented to the judges, the evidence that was found during the stop was suppressed and the
charges were dismissed. This case is considered a victory for the privacy of motorist in the state of New Jersey because they can rest assured that a warrant is needed when officers want to conduct a search on their private property. This is especially the case when there is no probable cause behind their search. Understanding that Kyle Smart was
taking part in illegal activity, his privacy was not respected, and his fourth amendment right was not granted when then officers pulled him over and created their own probable cause to search his vehicle after he did not give them his consent. The Fourth Amendment protect citizens from unreasonable, searches and seizures by the government, and in this case, it was ignored.
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 5
a 1,050- to 1,400-word summary of the article in which you analyze the requirements for
search and arrest warrants, and how they relate to the right to privacy and probable cause. In addition, discuss exceptions to warrant requirements.
References
DiFilippo, D. (2023, March 9). N.J. Supreme Court upholds privacy rights in warrantless police searches of Cars
. New Jersey Monitor. https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/03/09/n-j-
supreme-court-upholds-privacy-rights-in-warrantless-police-searches-of-cars/ State v. Kyle A. Smart (087315) (Ocean County &Amp
. New Jersey Courts. (n.d.). https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2023/a_6_22.pdf