Secure and Seizure

While officer jones and Reid were patrolling a high-crime neighborhood notorious for automobile vandalism, they observed Clemens working on the hubcap of a parked car while another youth stood by the car. The officers pulled over to investigate, identified themselves, and asked Clemens what's he was doing. Clemens began walking quickly away from the officers and toward his house. The officer asked him to stop, Clemens as he was reaching for the gate in front of his house. at this point, officer Reid performed a pat-down search and found a .38 caliber revolver. Clemens was arrested for suspicion of theft and illegal weapon possession.

According to the fourth amendment, people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against t unreasonable searches and seizures, but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. The Fourth Amendment can be divided in three categories. First is to provide protection for a person, his home and belongings, second, to prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures, and thirdly, warrants must be based on probably cause and specifically described as to what must be seized.

After reviewing the case and with the understanding of fourth amendment, I believe that officer's approach and executing the amendment was strongly right and the did manage to situation in conformity with the fourth amendment.

The first observed Clemens and might have noticed strange activities which lead them to go further toward him. They introduced themselves as officers and began investigating. Clemens was at a fault for not cooperating with officers at the time of interrogation. If he had answered to officers and quiet mannered then he wouldn't have been searched. He quickly started to walk away which forced officers to follow him and made them searched him.

In one of the case study which I read, Atwater v. City of Lago Vista 532 U.S. 318 (2001), Gail Atwater was arrested for not wearing seat belt, one of the eyewitness recorded that officer were verbally criticized Atwater and raised his voice, in addition to that she was also arrested. After the bail she and her husband filed a law suit because she was arrested for a crime which is only punishable by fine.

The main purpose for citing this case is to show the difference between the officer in charge at the time of interrogation. Both the officer calmly took the situation under control and they first asked his whereabouts and then took immediate action. The only reason why they began searching him is because of his rapid actions. Their search leads them to discover .38 caliber revolvers.

First of all Clemens was carrying illegal weapon possession and secondly weather he had right to possess firearms. It is still unsure what was the motive behind carrying a pistol and why

...