Scenarios Flashcards
(30 cards)
Amesbury Police Officer Silva is working in day shift when he sees a woman walking around in the Stop & Shop parking lot. Officer Silva has a hunch the woman is a suspect wanted for several car break-ins in the area. Officer Silva walks up to the woman and says, “Hi, I am Officer Silva with Amesbury Police. Would you mind talking with me for a minute? You’re not in any trouble.” The woman stops walking and said her name is “Christina Turco.”
Was the interaction between Officer Silva and Christina Turco a voluntary encounter? Explain your answer.
Here, the encounter is voluntary. When the officer speaks to Turco, she does not “show authority.” Turco is free to disengage, but rather that doing so, she volunteers her name.
Officer Pisano was on foot patrol at the indoor Revere Flea Market to serve as a general deterrent to larceny crimes. Officer Pisano made eye contact with an unknown man carrying a “fully-stuffed” backpack. After eye contact was made, the man started walking faster and toward an exit door. This made Officer Pisano suspicious. To investigate further, Officer Pisano touched the man’s upper left shoulder gently to get his attention and said, “Please hold up a minute, I need to talk to you.” The man stopped.
Was the interaction between Officer Pisano and the man a voluntary encounter? Explain your answer.
It was a seizure because Officer Pisano (1) made physical contact with man; and (2) told the man to stop. This amounts to a show of authority, and we need at least reasonable suspicion.
While patrolling the downtown area on bicycle, Officer Armstrong witnesses a man grab and take the purse held by a woman who had just walked out of the Savings & Loan Bank. The man sees Officer Armstrong and runs away. Officer Armstrong says “Police! Stop!” calls for back-up, and gives chase. The man is caught by another officer 4-5 blocks away from the scene.
When was the man who stole the purse “seized” by police? Explain your answer.
The man was seized when Officer Armstrong yells “Police! Stop!” See Commonwealth v. Stoute. Once we show our authority, a reasonable person will feel they are not free to disengage.
Officer Whalen stops a blue Ford F-150 after witnessing it make an illegal right turn on red. After Officer Whalen collects the driver’s license and vehicle registration, he asks the passenger for identification. The passenger gives Officer Whalen a social security card. Officer Whalen returns to his patrol car with documents provided by both driver and passenger to run warrant checks. There were no outstanding warrants on either person. The driver was issued a warning ticket.
Was the passenger seized by Officer Whalen? If yes, when? If no, why not? Explain your answer.
The passenger has been seized. We are limited as to when we may ask passengers for ID. We need separate reasonable suspicion for him in this case. Without it, a passenger is free to be left alone during a routine stop.
Article XIV
every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures, of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions.
To conduct an investigative stop, police must have reasonable suspicion based on “specific and articulable facts” that include, but are not limited to the following:
a) Time of day
b) Officer’s training and experience
c) Officer’s corroboration of facts provided
d) Officer observations of suspicious conduct
e) Officer’s knowledge of location (i.e., high crime area) f) Suspect’s description and proximity to crime scene
g) Suspect’s reactions to police presence
While driving down Main Street in her patrol car at 8:00 p.m., Officer Stone sees a man walking near the Fix-It Auto Parts store which was closed. The man is carrying a duffle bag over his shoulder. Officer Stone parks her patrol car, gets out, and starts walking toward the man.
Given facts provided, can Officer Stone conduct an “investigative stop” of the man carrying a duffle bag? Explain your answer.
No. Absent other “specific articulable facts” there was no reasonable suspicion to stop the man. We need to be able to “articulate” why we stop someone. What was he doing - beyond being suspicious to the officer, that would lead a reasonable person to believe he was doing anything wrong? No facts indicate anything out of the ordinary.
Everett Police Officer Pelletier was on patrol at 1:00 a.m. and has worked third shift in the same area for 5 years. Officer Pelletier sees John Steve’s considering a vacant car in a restaurant parking lot. Officer Pelletier knows that John has been arrested in the past for breaking into cars. John immediately starts running away after he spots Officer Pelletier’s patrol car.
Given facts provided, can Officer Pelletier conduct an investigative stop on John? Explain your answer.
Yes. The officer has experience with his route and knows the store is vacant. He also knows the suspect and the suspect has a history that is sufficiently similar to the crime that may be in the process of commission. Remember - we can stop anyone when we possess reasonable suspicion the suspect is/was/about to commit a crime. The officer’s experience with the route, vacant restaurant and knowledge of the suspect; coupled with the suspect running away gives him RS to detain him.
Over the past month, several car dealerships in Cambridge have experienced tire and rim thefts. Cambridge Police have information that suspects may be driving a small SUV or mini-van. While on patrol, Officer Orlando sees a man walking in the Hendrick car dealership lot at 2:00 a.m. Officer Orlando parks her patrol car, so she can watch the man without being seen. Officer Orlando watches the man walk through the lot while talking on a mobile phone. After 3-4 minutes, the man gets into a green dodge mini-van and drives away.
Given facts provided, can Officer Orlando conduct an investigative stop on the green mini-van? Explain your answer.
Yes. The officer has experience, knows the suspect and the suspect has a history that is sufficiently similar to the crime that may be in the process of commission. Remember - we can stop anyone when we possess reasonable suspicion the suspect is/was/about to commit a crime.
While driving down Main Street in her patrol car at 11:30 p.m. on Monday, Officer Tidwell sees a man walking on the grass area adjacent to the shoulder of Main Street. The man is wearing blue jeans, a gray t-shirt, and “fanny pack” around the waist. Officer Tidwell knows that some fanny packs are made specifically to carry firearms. Officer Tidwell pulls up along-side the man and says, “Hello sir, do you need any help?” The man says nothing, looks straight ahead, and picks up his walking pace. Before Officer Tidwell can ask another question, the man runs at full speed into the woods.
Given facts provided, can Officer Tidwell stop the man carrying a fanny pack? Explain your answer.
No. Suspects who run merely after seeing the police is one factor that may be considered in determining reasonable suspicion to stop, but is not, by itself, enough justify a stop and frisk. See Illinois v. Wardlow. If a suspect is under no obligation to respond to a police officer’s inquiry, flight to avoid that contact should be given little, if any weight as a factor probative toward RS
Officer Lyons sees Mark walking down Main Street. Officer Lyons stops Mark because there was an active warrant on file for Mark in the Warrant Management System (WMS) two days ago. Two fellow Wakefield officers arrive to back up Officer Lyons. Mark said, “I went to court yesterday and took care of that warrant.” Officer Lyons confirms that Mark did clear up the warrant. The two other Wakefield officers continue questioning Mark for 15 minutes about his activities before letting him go.
Did the additional 15 minutes of questioning by police violate Mark’s rights? Explain your answer.
Absent any other facts, the additional 15 minutes spent questioning Mark was unlawful because police did not have RS or PC for the detention.
Police receive an anonymous call from a woman reporting that a young white man is dealing drugs to passing motorists outside an apartment building on Smith Street. The caller further describes the man as wearing a blue Red Sox hat and a bright green Celtics sweatshirt. Upon arriving at Smith Street, Officer Barksdale sees a man fitting the caller’s description leaning into the passenger side of a parked blue Chevy sedan talking to the occupants. As Officer Barksdale gets closer, the Chevy’s driver sees Barksdale and immediately pulls out into the road. Officer Barksdale suspects that a drug deal has taken place and follows the Chevy onto Smith Street. At the intersection of Smith and Oak Avenue, the Chevy turns left onto Oak Avenue but fails to use his turn signal. Officer Barksdale activates his lights and siren.
At what point was the Chevy’s driver seized? Was the seizure lawful? Explain your answer.
Officer Barksdale seized the Chevy’s driver when the police car’s emergency lights were turned on. Although Officer Barksdale followed the car based on his suspicion that a drug deal had taken place, the act of following the car did not rise to the level of a 4th Amendment seizure. The anonymous call did not provide Officer Barksdale with sufficient evidence to conduct an investigatory stop of the Chevy. However, once Officer Barksdale observed the motor vehicle infraction (Failure to Signal), he was justified in stopping the Chevy to issue a citation.
Somerville PD received an anonymous tip that a man named “Charlie” will be selling cocaine near the Davis Square bus stop at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday. Charlie was described by the anonymous caller as a white man, 20-29 years old, and “always wearing a Boston Bruins jersey.” The caller warned Officers to “watch out” because Charlie may have a knife.
At 9:50 a.m. on Tuesday, Officer Parr sees a white man, 20- 29 years old, and wearing a Boston Bruins jersey standing near the Davis Square bus stop. The jersey was covering the man’s waist band. Officer Parr walks up to the man and asks, “What’s your name?” The man says, “Charles Brown. Sorry Officer, I’ve got to catch my bus.” The man walks away from Officer Parr.
Given facts provided, can Officer Parr conduct an investigative stop or frisk on Mr. Brown? Explain your answer.
No. Need veracity and corroboration
Yes, if the anonymous tip says he/she is watching it happen. (Basis of knowledge)
You can still act on an anonymous tip: secondary source. Anonymous tipster had veracity and basis of knowledge in order for me to act. Desk person should have asked how do you know this? Judge always wants to know how do you know?
Officer Smith stopped a car for speeding. When speaking with the driver, Officer Smith believes the driver is “overly” nervous. While writing out the citation, Officer Smith witnesses the driver and passenger pass something back and forth. After the passenger “slouches” down in his seat and is no longer in sight, Officer Smith calls for back-up.
Given facts provided, can Officer Smith order the passenger out of the vehicle? Explain your answer.
Yes, furtive movements.
Officer Watson responds to investigate an armed robbery in progress at 900 City Drive. Two blocks away from the scene, Officer Watson and a back-up officer lawfully stop a man whose description is identical to the armed robbery suspect. During the stop, Officer Watson conducts a frisk for weapons and feels what she describes as “something” in the suspect’s front-right pocket. After Officer Watson squeezed and moved the object while still inside the pocket, she believed it was individual packets of some drug. Officer Watson removed six packets of heroin from the pocket and charged the suspect with possession with the intent to distribute.
Given facts provided, was the seizure of heroin by Officer Watson lawful? Explain your answer.
No. You cannot manipulate the pocket, it is an unlawful frisk for weapons.
Foxboro Police have a valid arrest warrant on Eric Hernandez for manslaughter. The weapon used in the crime has not been found. When officers arrive at the address listed on the arrest warrant, Eric’s roommate invites officers to come inside. Eric is found sleeping in one of the bedrooms and arrested. Before leaving, one of the officers sees a light coming from the basement. The basement door, just off the kitchen, is slightly ajar. The officer suspects that someone could be hiding in the basement and decides to conduct a protective sweep. While looking in the basement, the officer found a handgun inside a small cardboard box.
Did Foxboro police have lawful authority to conduct a protective sweep? Explain your answer. Can Foxboro police seize the handgun during the protective sweep? Explain your answer.
Yes. The officers are there lawfully. Officer safety until you exit the house beyond the threshold.
No. no reason to search the small cardboard box. If there is no cover on the box, you can seize the gun.
When determining whether a particular use of force is “objectively reasonable” courts will consider the totality of circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, including:
a) What was known by the officer on the scene?
b) What was the type and severity of crime involved in the
stop or arrest?
c) Was the suspect an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others? d) Was the suspect actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest?
Haverhill Police develop credible information that the resident of 222 Boots Drive, Trevor Allen, is selling heroin. On the eve of trash collection day, Officers remove five, 13-gallon plastic garbage bags from a green trash receptacle on the curb of 222 Boots Drive. The trash receptacle has wheels for pulling and a hinged lid. Officers take the trash bags back to the police station. Without a warrant, they search the bags and find heroin residue and other items that are consistent with distribution. Officers also find utility bill statements with Trevor’s name confirming he lives at 222 Boots Drive.
Given facts provided, did Haverhill police officers have authority to seize and search the garbage bags? Explain your answer.
Yes, on the curb.
Boston Police develop credible information that Rick Tudor is selling heroin. Officers perform surveillance on Rick and watch him sitting on a public park bench for an hour. Rick does not, however, interact with any other person while in the park and Rick does not use his cell phone. When Rick gets up to leave, he leaves a small paper bag on the bench. Once Rick leaves the park, BPD officers seize the paper bag and find 10 individual baggies of heroin inside.
Given facts provided, did Haverhill police officers have authority to seize and search the paper bag? Explain your answer.
Yes, voluntary abandonment.
Lynnfield Police develop credible information that a resident of 999 Spring Street, Terry Adams, is selling drugs. One afternoon, officers watch Terry standing on the sidewalk in front of her home holding a small metal canister. As Terry sees Lynnfield officers walking toward her, she tosses the metal canister into her fenced-in yard at 999 Spring Street. Lynnfield officers jump the fence, open the locked canister and find three small bags of meth inside.
Given facts provided, did Lynnfield police officers have authority to seize and search the canister? Explain your answer.
No, in her curtilage, canister is locked, our presence caused her to abandon
Dedham Police receive a tip that Sam is selling drugs from his side porch. While conducting surveillance, police witness several people walk up to Sam’s house and speak briefly with him at the front door. Sam would then walk to the side porch, return to the front door, and hand something to each visitor, who would immediately leave. Believing Sam was selling drugs, Officer Jackson walked up the pathway leading to Sam’s house and up-front porch steps, then knocked on Sam’s front door. When Sam answered the door, Officer Jackson asked, “What’s back there?” Before Sam could answer, Officer Jackson walked around the corner to the back of the side porch and found an empty 20-ounce plastic soda bottle partially hidden by a woodpile. The bottle contained 15 bags of heroin.
Given facts provided, was Officer Jackson’s seizure of the paper bag valid?
No, in his curtilage. We don’t have a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances.
Officer Kagle stops a car for an expired inspection sticker. There are 3 people inside the car and the owner is in the rear seat. Officer Kagle has a “hunch” that contraband is inside car. After issuing the driver a citation, Officer Kagle asks the driver for consent to search the car. The driver refuses, but the owner gives consent to search the entire car, including the trunk. During the consent search, Officer Kagle finds a stolen handgun and eight ounces of cocaine in the driver’s backpack, which was in the trunk.
Did Officer Kagle have lawful authority to search the driver’s backpack? Explain your answer.
No, exceeded the scope of interaction/search. UNLESS something happens to give you RS.
During a larceny investigation of a 27” flat screen TV, Officer Powers obtains consent to search a vehicle driven by a possible suspect. The suspect says, “You can search my car for the television.” During the consent search, Officer Powers lifts the hood and finds a kilo of heroin in the engine compartment. Officer Powers seizes the heroin and arrests the suspect.
Given facts provided, was the seizure of heroin lawful? Explain your answer.
No, exceeded the scope.
Two Wrentham Police officers have probable cause to believe a stolen car may be hidden inside a residential garage at 99 Western Avenue. Before applying for a search warrant, officers want to see if the home owner, Mr. McCaul, will give them consent to search. Officers tell Mr. McCaul about their investigation before asking him for consent to search the garage. Mr. McCaul asks, “Why are you harassing me? Do I have to let you search?” Officers tell Mr. McCaul if he refuses to consent, they will apply for a warrant. Mr. McCaul reluctantly gave officers verbal consent to search his garage. However, he refused to give officers written consent.
Was consent provided by Mr. McCaul to search his garage informed and voluntary? Explain your answer.
Yes, officers have Probable Cause anyways (warrant). If they were only at Reasonable Suspicion or Hunch it would be no good.
