question archive State Trooper Jones follows Mike Smith, driving his car down the highway at normal speed
State Trooper Jones follows Mike Smith, driving his car down the highway at normal speed
Subject:LawPrice:5.01 Bought7
State Trooper Jones follows Mike Smith, driving his car down the highway at normal speed. After three miles of being followed, Smith changes lanes without signaling. Trooper Jones immediately turns on the lights and sirens and signals Smith to pull over. Smith does so. Assume that marijuana is ILLEGAL.
The trooper, in full trooper regalia, walks up to the driver's window, leans in, and asks, ominously, "do you know why I pulled you over?" Smith says no. Jones says, "you changed lanes without signaling". Jones, nervously, gulps and apologizes. "License and registration, sir" says Jones. Smith complies. While examining the documents, Trooper Jones detects the odor of burnt marijuana (in this jurisdiction it is still illegal to possess or use marijuana) from inside the car. Trooper Jones asks Smith " have you been smoking weed in your car just now?" Smith stammers "uh-um-ah". Trooper Jones tells Smith to get out of the car and quickly puts him in handcuffs. Trooper Jones then asks Smith is there any more drugs in the car? Smith replies "yes, in the trunk". Trooper Jones rummages through the trunk and finds a bag of cocaine, about four ounces.
1) What right or element of criminal procedure is involved here? If so, what triggers the right/procedure?
2) Can the admission Smith gave about the drugs in the car be used in court against Smith?
3) What about the admission of drug running?
4) Should they be admissible?
5) Is there a case about questioning that is on point here? What is it? What did it say?
Purchase A New Answer
Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts
GET A QUOTE
Answer Preview
Answer:
1). Smith found in possession of the drug if it was his first time he can receive warning but it was while driving and can put any other person's life at risk. The criminal procedure needs to be followed and the right elements are involved are taking a person into custody. At this point and depending on the circumstances, either the matter will be dealt with by way of charge. The punishment depends on the class of drugs, the number of drugs and punishment will be decided by the court.
2). Yes it can be used.
3) and 4). Yes, it has to be admissible. Under section 37(3) of the act provides that possession includes things subject to the defendant's control, which are in the custody. A person found in possession of one form of the drug should be charged with the substantive offence of possession of actual drugs. When there is evidence that supports a charge of supply or possession of controlled drugs of any class with the intent of supply and evidence should be at least one or more.
5). Yes, there is the point of questioning here when Smith was asked if he was transporting the drugs and get paid for it. It makes a point that there are drug peddlers in city and trooper john is aware of it.
