Two police officers in uniform were on foot patrol in a neighborhood frequented by drug dealers. They sa S who, when she swq them , turned around and started to walk quickly away. The police ran after her and shouted "Stop and don'take another step, lady!" S turned, looked at the police and stopped. She put her arms up in the air. As the police approached, she threw a small object into nearby bushes. The police retrived the object, which turned out to be a small bag of cocaine, and then arrested S.
S was charged with possession of coca. She moves pretrail to supress its use as evidence on the grounf that it wa obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure.
Motion should be:
A granted, because the police didn't know the ithem was coca until after they had seized it.
B granted, because the police acquired the coca as the result of and unlawful seizure.
C denied, because the police had probable cause to seize the packet.
D denied, because S voluntarily discarded the contraband.
Sorry for the typos.

She saw the officer and decided to forget the bagel and get back to her job at the mall (high drug sales) doesn't give officers PC or Terry suspicion to seize her.  Since police in uniform running at her and yelling "stop" would cause a reasonable person to feel seized, anything obtained as a result of the illegal seizure is inadmissible - even the drugs thrown in fear - after she was seized (note; not plain view if revealed as a result of the seizure).

B

Instead of just saying A B C or D, please state the rule then state your answer. A quick two or three line analysis will not do you any harm either.

C

the focus is whether the arrest was legal. for arrest to be legal there must be probable cause for arrest. C is the only choice that provide the missing link.

A. Can be eliminated. if police had P.C. and saw S throwing an object away in an area known for drug sales...the police will be allowed to recover the object based on the arrest, regardless if they knew what that item was prior to obtaining it.

B. can be eliminated b/c police had P.C. in this case. in an area known for drugs, S attempted to flee in the presence of police, this gives the police p.c. to arrest S b/c the police can reasonably believe a crime had been committed...more specifically drugs may be involved.

D. Whether S voluntarily or involuntarily discarded the object is irrelevant (voluntariness tend to involve stmts under interrogation).

D

When officers have reasonable suspicion that a crime is occuring they can stop and frisk a suspect.

Since these officers were patrolling in a high drug area, they had reasonable suspicion when the suspect saw them and began to run away. Therefore, based on that suspicion they had they authority to stop the suspect and when she voluntarily disgarded the contraband, it was seen by the officers in plain view and at that point could be seized and used against her as evidence.

Based on reasonable suspicion to stop there was no illegal search and no illegal seizure.

D

Once the bag of cocaine was discarded there was no longer any expectation of privacy as to that bag. I.e., she didn't have standing.

The question remains whether there was a valid Terry stop. The requirement for a Terry stop is that the police can articulate a reasonable suspicion. Here the police are able to use their instincts and stop a potential suspect and ask some basic questions like "what is your name?" and "what are you doing here?" This would also permit, for instance, a police officer to excercise a Terry stop on a man pacing in front of a jewelry store (on the reasonable suspicion that he is casing the store.)

Thus, D.

D. There was no search or seizure here. The police stoopped her based on their reasonable suspicion. When she three away the object, she no longer had reasonable expectation of privacy. Her subsequent arrest was based on probable cause

This Q is part of a packet of questions that I bought from the NCBE. Unfortunatelly it doesn't have an explanation. The answer is B. My logical assumption is because the detention was illegal. For a detention the police must have a reasonable suspicion that a criminal activity is affot and is supported by articulable facts, not merely a hunch. The difference with the case about the guy who is walking in front of a jewerly is more especific than a neighborhood that is frequented by drug dealers.
Please bring your comments because I might have missed something.

B. Subject was siezed upon command "Stop." No probable cause just for being in an area near drug dealers.

Contrast with abandonment before command "stop" (see Cal v. Hodari)

this was discussed in detail last summer on this site. (do search for Terry stop)
problem like that is usually in context of racial profiling: minority guy in crime area walking down a street, sees cops and walks away/ Do cops have an articulable suspicion? no they do not. Why? This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch

Per Terry  standard courts should employ is an objective one. “Would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate?” Lesser evidence would mean that the Court would tolerate invasions on the privacy of citizens supported by mere hunches—a result the Court would not tolerate.

'good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.' ... If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be 'secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police." — quoting Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)

The more I think about it, the more I am unsure of the correct answer. Unprovoked flight in a high crime area gives rise to reasonable articulable suspicion (Illinois v Ward) This would make the temporary seizure of the person "Stop" proper. Thus, the tossed drugs are fair game.

At a minimum, I think it is a poorly conceived question.

Oh the a fine line the MBE tests! I suppose the focus on a question like this, and so many others like it, is the actual facts presented in the question.

I suppose that the creaters of this MBE wanted us to pick up on the fact that she never actually did anything overtly suspicious enough to create a articulable reasonable suspicion. While it is easy to infer from the facts that she was acting suspicious, the facts never actually say she did. She was in a high crime area, looked at the cops, and walked away.

There are 10 questions that get tossed out of every MBE (correct me if I'm wrong.) I suppose questions like this are the reason why.

Poorly framed question or not, it is helpful to get in the tester's head to see how they are trying to trick us.

No doubt this was a bullshit question. In my neighborhood if you see the cops and then walk away quickly in the other direction, chances are you are gonna get stopped.

B, acquired the coke, after an illegal seizure
/detention.....

Just because the police r in a high drug area doesn't automatically give them the free for all to search seize and detain everyone..

The fact that the area is a high drug area does not mean that every on that lives there are using and selling drugs.

Police need articuable facts to detain the deft in this question.

The mere fact of just running away is not enough.....I say B

Now, adding additional facts might change the outcome...

Say for instance the deft was walking up and down the street, cars passed by and stopped near the deft, the police saw small baggies being exchanged between the deft and driver of the car. When police approached the deft, the deft ran...Then maybe, coke would be admissible..


Any comments or additions
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From:

No! I think the last poster is completly wrong! RUNNING away after seeing the police in a high crime area WOULD be enough to satisfy the requirements for a Terry Stop.

The facts indicate that she only saw the police and turned and walked away, which would not be sufficient.

Terry Stop justifies a pat down for weapons not drugs......


Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From:

Dear, Judgelearned "hand"

I know the ramifications of a pat down frisk for weapons (AKA Terry Stop).....However
I think just being in a drug area and walking, or running away would not justify a lawful detention.

Its not about right or wrong, we r on this board to learn, interact, and argue the law...
Same is true on the bar exam and litigation

We can all discuss this and figure it out.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From:

Unprovoked flight in a high crime area gives rise to articulable reasonable suspicion (Illinois v. Ward.)

In Ill v Wardlow courts were allowed to consider that an area is a "high crime area" as a factor to evaluate the reasonableness of a fourth amendment seizure. The Supreme Court never defined what a "high crime area" was and lower courts have not reached a definition as well.. 
 
Since there is not a clear and unambigious definition of a HIGH CRIME AREA, MANY MANY MANY court cases went on appeal for due process and bias constitutional violations....
 
Articulation is the key.... The courts now use balance test aka "Totality of the circumstances" to determine if the detention was reasonable in a high crime area
 
The queston presented to the court in Wardlow set out whether officers had reasonable suspicion (RC) to believe the suspect was in possession of narcotics at the time they stopped her . Not before
 
Accordng to State v. Fleming, the courts ruled that "mere presence in a high crime area, without more, does not justify a stop, much less a frisk, of a suspect." Without any additional articulable facts......The detention is illegal and any evidence obtained will be suppressed..
 
To wit, Wardlow and in Terry the seizure does not occur till the subject submits to the authority of the police officer. In the MBE question the subject later submitted to their authority....... 
 
So, again just stating Wardlow gives officers the right to STOP and DETAIN because a person is in a high crime area is a wrong analysis of the case and the cases after and before it...
 
 
 

--- On Wed, 2/10/10,

The answer is D, but you knew that, didn't you?

--- On Mon, 2/8/10,