I’m working on a Law exercise and need support.
Read the assigned case. Before you read the court’s decision determine how you would find if you were the judge. Write a discussion post based on your decision. After your post, go back in the case. Were you correct? Did the court find the way you thought they would find? Did they do so for the same reasons? Post a reflective post on your analysis of the case versus the court’s analysis. Please find the Rubric for the Active Learning Discussions in Rubrics under the Progress drop-down menu. Discussion Question Guidelines can be found in the Resources folder under Doc Sharing.
Vague or overbroad:
4. Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974)
Posted Aug 19, 2020 11:12 AM
U.S. v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2001)
One afternoon in January 1998, a United States Border Patrol Agent was alerted to vehicles traffic on a infrequently used road in the area of Douglas, Arizona. As the Border Patrol Agent arrived in the area, he located the vehicle. At this time, the Border Patrol Agent observed a minivan begin to drive at a very slow rate of speed. As he moved closer to the vehicle, he observed a male driver sitting with a rigid posture, all while ignoring the Border Patrol Agent. The mans erratic behavior, as well as several children sitting in the back in a manner which indicated they were sitting on a substance covering the floor of the vehicle, indicated enough suspicious activity to warranted a stop of the vehicle. A subsequent search of the vehicle located almost 129 pounds of marijuana.
The suspect was charged with various narcotics statutes and convicted despite attempting to suppress the evidence based on the idea that the Border Patrol Agent did not posses sufficient reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle. The district court denied this argument.
The suspect, Ralph Arvizu, appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit analyzed each of the 10 individual reasons the Border Patrol Agent made the stop, determining 7 of the team were easily explained as innocent behavior. The remaining 3 did not carry enough weight to attain reasonable suspicion. With these findings, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Arvizu’s conviction. The federal government appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
If I were the judge in this matter, I would reverse the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and return the case to the District Court. The reasoning for this decision is the court is looking at each of the reasons for the stop as a single entity, not a totality of the reasons combined. As a law enforcement officer, they base a decision off of everything they know at that time, not a single reasoning. With this mentality, each individual reasoning could be explained away but this concept is much more difficult to accomplish when you put all of the ten reasons together at one time.
U.S. v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2001) (United States Suspreme Court January 15, 2002) WestLaw, Dist.
Posted Aug 19, 2020 11:12 AM
Did I Find the Way the Court Found?
On January 15, 2002, the United States Supreme Court issued their ruling on the matter. I found the way the court found. The Supreme Court determined the manner in which the Court of Appeals judged the reasonable suspicion of the stop was incorrect. While the Circuit Court judged each of the Border Patrol Agents reasons on an individual basis, a court must judge the reasonableness of the stop based on the totality of the circumstances. This means the court system must compile all the information known to the officer at the time and make a decision after considering all the information as one. Once the court considered all the suspicious acts Arvizu was presenting at the time, it was reasonable for a law enforcement officer to suspect Arvizu was engaged in some form of criminal activity.
U.S. v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2001) (United States Supreme Court January 15, 2002) (WestLaw, Dist. file).