Given that we're past your deadline, I'm going to give my two cents.
Not what I would provide as a researched answer, but perhaps helpful
nonetheless.
Defense #1: Racial Profiling
The scenario suggests that the officer's curiosity might have been
piqued by the race of the individual crouching by the car door. This
might inspire a charge of "racial profiling". This charge, though, is
weakened by the greater context - including the location and the
conduct of the involved individuals. The prosecution might also
respond that while the officer took note of the race, and that raised
his suspicion that this was an outsider to the community likely there
to buy drugs, under the circumstances he would have investigated the
activity regardless of race.
Defense #2: Leaving The Scene
The defense might attempt to argue that the officer is reading too
much into the fact that the suspected buyer was leaving the scene in
response to seeing the police car. However, a desire to avoid an
encounter with the police is not necessarily indicative of any
improper conduct - even law-abiding citizens often don't want to be
confronted by the police. The prosecution would likely respond by
again pointing to the larger context. The officer probably would not
have acted had he only seen the person leave when his presence became
apparent, but in the specific context at issue where it already
appeared that a crime was taking place it was fair for the officer to
consider how the suspects responded to his approach.
Defense #3: Improper Search
I am not entirely clear from your description whether any contraband
was found on the suspected buyer, or if the only suspect who was
searched was the suspected seller. (Or if both were searched.) Here's
a start:
The defense is likely to argue that while the officer had the right to
perform a "weapons frisk" to ensure his safety, he did not have
probable cause to perform a more intrusive search of the suspect.
There was nothing about the frisk which made the nature of the
suspected contraband apparent on the basis of "plain feel" - the
officer did not know what the "small rock-like objects" might have
been until he extracted them from the suspect's clothing. Absent
probable cause or consent, the suspect would argue for suppression of
the cocaine. The prosecution would likely respond that based upon the
size of the rocks, the manner in which they were packaged, and similar
considerations, the officer had probable cause that it was cocaine.
Still, if the arrest was made after the cocaine was extracted, it is
more difficult to assert that probable cause for arrest existed before
the extraction of the initial back of suspected cocaine.
If the defense is persuasive, that the initial seizure of cocaine was
the result of a bad search, they would argue that the subsequent
search "incident to arrest" was improper as there was no lawful basis
for arrest, and that the additional evidence found in the second
search should be suppressed as the "fruit of the poisonous tree". The
prosecution might also argue that even if the initial search was
overreaching, probable cause to arrest still existed, and all of the
cocaine would have been found within the context of a search incident
to arrest. (The "inevitable discovery" exception to the warrant
requirement.) The defense, of course, would argue that until the first
bag of suspected cocaine was found, there was no probable cause for
arrest.
I hope your role as host will be (or was) enjoyable.
- expertlaw |
