Court Opinion

Paper Summary:

The paper discusses "Arizona versus Johnson", a case which is currently being decided by the Supreme Court, in which the police stopped a motorist for a traffic violation. The police determined that one of the fellow passengers appeared dangerous, so they asked him to step out of the car, searched him, discovered marijuana and a firearm, and arrested him. The defendant appealed the case, arguing that the stop was unlawful. This paper argues why the stop was constitutional by using previous cases that the Supreme Court has decided.

From the Paper:

"The Appeals Court agreed with him and made a motion to suppress the evidence. In making its appeal to us, the state of Arizona contends that the police can lawfully search an individual whom they believe is a threat to their safety even if no crime is afoot. We agree with the State of Arizona. Arizona v. Johnson presents questions about the application of the Fourth Amendment for a traffic violation stop where there is a basis for suspicion. Accordingly, we must look at four crucial facts to decide this case: We must first examine the nature of the vehicular stop. We must also examine whether a passenger is subject to the same stipulations of the driver. We must also examine the officer's need to protect his/her own safety under such exigent circumstances where obtaining a search warrant is impractical. Most importantly, we must examine the officer's responsibility to stop impending crime."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Arizona v Johnson. Information about the case. www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/ pdfs/07-08/07-1122_PetitionerAmCu5Law EnforceAssocs.pdf. 2007.
• Brendlin v California. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do ?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T5184809051&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T5184809054&cisb=22_T5184809053&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=6443&docNo=1 . 2007.
• Knowles v Iowa. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T5184825138&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T5184825146&cisb=22_T5184825145&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=6443&docNo=1. 1998.
• Maryland v Wilson. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T5184833271&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T5184833274&cisb=22_T5184833273&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=6443&docNo=1 1997.
• Mimms v Pennsylvania. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T5184827099&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T5184828902&cisb=22_T5184828901&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=6443&docNo=2. 1977.

More papers on Court Opinion:

• Argumentative Essay # 91444 : "The Supreme Court and Public Opinion"
• Book Review # 36602 : "Public Opinion and the Supreme Court"
• Term Paper # 103083 : "Knowledge and Expertise in the Court System"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: