The Pros And Cons Of Ordering Meyers Outside The Judicial Process

Warrantless searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable, absent an established exception. (Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366.) Officers may temporarily detain an individual to conduct an investigatory stop for the purposes of investigating a criminal offense without a warrant. (Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 27.) Nonetheless, a warrantless investigatory stop constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 29. Moreover, the validity of a detention is to be based on the information known to the law enforcement officer at the time he acted. (United States v. Gaines (2012) 688 F.3d 170.) As such, officers must provide specific and articulable facts for a reasonable suspicion in believing the person detained engaged in criminal activity for a warrantless seizure to be valid. (In re James D. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 903, 914.)

Once reasonable suspicion is

Meyers was walking down the staircase of the apartment complex when he first came into contact with the officers on scene. Ordering Meyers to stop, he was immediately detained and subjected to an investigatory stop. Yet, officers did not know the identity of their suspect prior to Meyers’ detainment. Because officers were unaware as to the suspect’s identity, it suggests they did not know whether Meyers was parlayed to a crime, a victim, a suspect and or even armed. Nonetheless, officers acted based on unknown information at the time and therefore lacked the specific and articulable facts to establish reasonable suspicion that Meyers engaged in criminal activity. Without reasonable suspicion, officers pat-down search of Meyers was invalid without a warrant. Therefore, the .22 caliber Taurus revolver, ammunition and holster obtained as a result of the warrantless search and seizure is the fruit of the poisonous tree and must be