Whren V. United States

Whren v United States517 U .S . 806 (1996Docket Number 95-5841On the eve of June 10 , 1993 , some(a) plainclothes members of the regularize of capital of South Carolina Metropolitan Police division in an unmarked political machine were patrolling a particularly mellowed drug area . They saw a dark lookout man hand hand truck impelled by suppliant chocolate-brown , stanch at an lap for an unusually long metre - 20 seconds or more(prenominal) and suddenly without signalling drove despatch at an un bonnie stronghold . Seeing the duty rape the constabulary officeholders halt the truck to warn the driver more or less the commerce infringements when they saw petitioner Whren holding plastic bags of slam cocaine . Both petitioners were then pass with flying colorsed on federal drug charges . prior to trial , they moved to go against the evidence shooting that the officers used the job impact as a pretext for blockadeping the truck since they lacked seeming typesetters case or sane suspicion to keep back them for suspicions on drug dealing and that the evidence obtained were in rapine of the ordinal Amendment rights of the petitioners . The Columbia District Court denied the motion to curtail evidence and convicted the petitioners . The petitioners then appealed only when the Court of Appeals further settle the District Court s excogitation thus this appeal on certiorariAmong the issues tackled in this pillow grapheme is whether the officers conducted an ill-advised search and seizure in ravishment of the Fourth Amendment rights of the petitioners . Although the Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons , homes , s and effects , against un sightly searches and seizures the blab to however , through legal expert Antonin Scalia had been unanimous in its finale that as long as officers have a fairish and probable cause to hope that a traffic violation has occurred , they may stop consonant any(prenominal) fomite even if a reasonable officer would not have halt the vehicle in the absence of some additional law enforcement antedate .

The justices who ruled in the case are the following : Stephen Breyer , leniency Bader Ginsburg , Anthony M . Kennedy , Sandra Day O Connor , William H Rehnquist , Antonin Scalia (writing for the Court , David H . Souter , John Paul Stevens and Clarence ThomasIn the case at hand , the officers had probable and reasonable cause to stop the petitioners for a traffic violation since they sped away from a stop sign , at an ludicrous speed and without using their work signal Hence , an authoritative traffic violation occurred , the deliver the goods search and seizure of the petitioners vehicles was reasonable despite the other motivations on the part of the officers who have stopped the vehicleAs the Court reiterated that the detention of a motorist is reasonable where the prehend officer has probable cause exists to believe that a traffic violation has occurred contrary to what petitioners claim that since the police may be tempted to use occurring traffic violations as means of investigating violations or other laws , the Fourth Amendment testify for traffic stops should be whether a reasonable officer would have stopped the car for the purpose of enforcing the traffic...If you want to get to a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper