Criminal Justice Assignment: Traffic Stops and Probable Cause Analysis

This criminal justice assignment explores the legal standards and procedures surrounding traffic stops. It begins by defining reasonable suspicion and probable cause, referencing the Fourth Amendment and relevant case law like Terry vs. Ohio. The assignment then discusses the importance of legal principles in traffic stops, referencing Carroll vs. United States and the variations in state laws. Finally, it examines the warrantless search of vehicles, as per the Carroll case, and the limitations on such searches, including the right to refuse k-9 searches. The assignment highlights the balance between law enforcement powers and individual rights, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal standards and constitutional protections.

Running head: CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Criminal Justice
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

1CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Answer
Part- 1
Traffic stops are considered to be the greatest hazardous duty which is usually done by a
law implementation officer. The lawful standard for which a traffic stop on the basis of a
violation of traffic rules or criminal activity has initiated by a law implementation officer is
reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion involves the objective reasoning of a law
implementation officer to arrest someone for any purpose (Terry vs. Ohio [1968] 392 U.S. 1).
As per the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the police only require a probable cause
to search a vehicle of an individual in the course of a traffic stop. Probable cause means that the
police must have enough proof or reason to conclude that an individual engage in criminal
activities, which includes the sight or a simple smell of a contraband or admittance of a fault for
a particular crime (Gelb, 2019).
Part- 2
It is important for a patrol officer to keep in mind that there are various fundamental
lawful concepts in order to stop a vehicle for a traffic related offence. First, the officer must keep
in mind that the stopping must relates to the Fourth Amendment as per the Carroll vs. United
States [1925] 267 U.S. 132. Secondly, the State legislation on automotive stops and searches can
vary from one state to another.
However, changes in traffic stop situations can depend on multiple factors, which
includes reasonable time for checking license, warrants, writing cases.

2CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Part- 3
As per the decisions made in the landmark case of Carroll vs. United States [1925] 267
U.S. 132, it is the right of a police officer to examine a vehicle without warrant, when there are
some realistic grounds regarding the involvement of the concerned car in criminal activities. As
per the Supreme Court regulation, the searching without warrant must comply with the Fourth
Amendment.
However, these powers are not absolute and a person has a right to refuse k-9 searches if
necessary and if a judge finds that there is no reason for detaining an individual until the dog
arrives, any proof revealed by the dog may be put to court (Jia, Spooner & Del Carmen, 2016).

3CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Reference
Gelb, D. K. (2019). Is the Reverse Location Search Warrant Heading in the Wrong
Direction?. Criminal Justice, 34(2), 68-69.
Jia, D., Spooner, K., & Del Carmen, R. V. (2016). An Analysis and Categorization of US
Supreme Court Cases Under the Exigent Circumstances Exception to the Warrant
Requirement. Geo. Mason UCRLJ, 27, 37.