The Change in Law Enforcement’s Procedure to Protect Passenger’s Rights Instructor

In Wyoming v. Houghton (1999) impacted law enforcement procedure by its ruling states that law enforcement officer have a right to search a passenger’s personal possession, only if the law enforcement officer could present probable cause or the officer could prove contrabands and illegal activity . The automobile exception is recognized under the 4th Amendment to eliminate the requirements for search warrant of automobiles when there is probable cause established that contraband was located in the vehicle and illegal activities were involved (Chase, 1999, p. 1). This paper will examine Wyoming v. Houghton case and the impact on law enforcement procedures in relate to Wyoming Supreme Court wrongful ruling. It will also examine two journals related to how Wyoming’s ruling effected probable cause standards. According to Wyoming v. Houghton (1999), was first developed on July 23, 1995 when David Young’s car was stopped for a traffic violation by Wyoming Highway Patro l Officer, Delaine Baldwin. Baldwin noticed that Young’s car had a broken brake light and Young was also traveling over the speed limit. Young’s passenger was his girlfriend and a young lady named Sandra Houghton. When the patrol officer approached the vehicle he noticed the syringe that was sticking out of Young’s shirt pocket. After his reasonable suspicion and probable cause, Officer Baldwin followed his procedure and demanded everyone to stand on road close to the car. Young was cross-examined from Officer Baldwin in reference to the syringe. Young told the officer the syringe was used for his drug usages (Wyoming v. Houghton, 1999). The officer asked both of passengers for their identification. However, Sandra Houghton responded her name was Sandra James and she did not have driver license. Baldwin had a valid reason to search the car. The search continued and Officer Baldwin spotted a purse in backseat with her driver license. The driver license conformed that she was Sandra Houghton. In her defense of the driver license, she responded â€Å"she did not want to be involved if something went bad was to happen†. This made officer more suspicions. The purse had a brown pouch that had several syringe with 60 cc of methamphetamine, a vial of paraphernalia, and also black billfold. Instance, Sandra responded to Baldwin the things he found did not belong to her. Of course, this gave Baldwin a reason to assume that Houghton was also taking drugs, by the needle marks. Houghton was place under arrested for evidence that was that was found. However, the other suspects were release (Wyoming v. Houghton, 1999). According to the case, prior to the trial Houghton submitted a motion to the Wyoming Supreme Court. The motion was denied to restrain the evidences from the court and her privacy rights as passenger being violate through the 4th Amendment. Instead, Wyoming Supreme Court was certain officer follows his procedure to before he obtained the illegitimate evidence. Wyoming Supreme Court established that Houghton was guilty of procession of control substance. Wyoming Supreme Court verdict was she had to serve three year maximum in the Wyoming Women Center. However, Houghton appealed the decision of the court violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. (Wyoming v. Houghton, 1999) September 29, 1998, Wyoming Supreme Court’s verdict was overturned by the United States Supreme Court (Wyoming v. Houghton, 1998) According to the case, The United States Supreme Court declared: â€Å"Generally one by using valid probable cause officer is allowed to search all know container whether all know that a container is the personal effect of a passenger who is not suspected of a criminal activity, then the container is outside of the scope of the search unless someone had the opportunity to conceal the contraband within the personal effects to avoid detention† (Wyoming v. Houghton, 1998, p. 363 & 372). The Wyoming Supreme Court decision was overturned by the United States Supreme Court based on Houghton Fourth Amendment rights of privacy was violated by the officer. United Supreme Court approved the certiorari. According to the case, the court questioned the probable cause of the search. In the case, the officer confessed to the court that the purse belong to Houghton. The U. S. Supreme Court stressed that the search was unpractical. The U. S. Supreme Court continued to dispute that Wyoming Supreme Court made error in its verdict. U. S. Supreme Court justified it claims by evaluating the officer probable cause to search the vehicle. In prior years automobile exception was already established. The automobile exception definition was use an a exception of the Fourth Amendment which only recognize in search if an officer has probable cause that automobile contains illegitimate evidence or suspicion of a individual relating to any illegal activity. The U. S. Supreme Court wanted to establish the scope of the exception if the testimonial present by the officer supports the Houghton belonging were concealed any illegal drugs. The U. S. Supreme Court used the notice test in determining if the officer had established a valid probable cause. The notice test was the foundation of the overturn decision of U. S. Supreme Court to reverse verdict of Wyoming Supreme Court (Wyoming v. Houghton, 1998). The violation of the Fourth Amendment was the reason of the appeal. The courts focus more on automobile searches that gave law enforcement permission to search individual personal belongings. The courts examine cases like Ybarra v. Illinois in its appeal. The Ybarra v. Illinois was verdict that allows an exception to a search warrant in homes and business places to search any nonresidential or guest personal items (Wyoming v. Houghton, 1999, p. 98-184). In the examination of the case the courts utilized three important cases to justify the scope of the automobile exception rule. The case that was examined during the trial by the U. S. Supreme Court was Carroll v. United States (1925), United States v. Ross (1982), and California v. Acevedo (1991). Carroll was used because it was first to rule on automobile exception. The significances of the Carroll ruling was evidence could be obtained without search warrant even if a suspect hides any illegal objects or drugs in their vehicle (Carroll v. United States, 1925, p. 267) the second case examined by the court was United States v. Ross (1982). The significant of this case was as long as law enforcement has follow the probable cause standards , an officer is allow to search any container located in automobile (Wyoming v. Houghton, 1999). However, the scope of the search had to meet the requirements if a regular warrant was issue. The third case of the automobile search of the exception rule is California v. Acevedo. In California v. Acevedo the courts pointed out the most important factor was in this case that supported Wyoming was if the officer has less probable cause could justify more any wide-ranging of searches of automobile. Ross and Acevedo case were not as effective in Wyoming v. Houghton. The importance of both rulings related to contraband was obtained. It did not support the circumstances in the Wyoming case relating to the passengers belonging being search. The important rule of both case were related to evidence that could be seized by the plain view rule. The court examines all the past rules to determine the courts final decision. The decision in which if this new rule was past will it be used to protect citizen’s personal rights. Another problem can across, would this new rule allow law enforcement to search all containers without a warrant. The U. S. Supreme Court decide to past the new rule that states, if the probable cause is establish law enforcement were to search passenger’s belongings found in the automobile and any items that could hide back any convicting evidence (Wyoming v. Sandra Houghton, 526 U. S. 295 1999). In the article of â€Å"Don’t Accept Rides Form Strangers: The Supreme Court hastens the demise of passenger written by Hewitt Daniel discuss and examine the impact how the Wyoming v. Houghton modified criminal procedures to execute an unlawfully verdict. First, Hewitt argues about the errors of the Wyoming Supreme Court verdict which violated Sandra Houghton’s were violated under Fourth Amendment. He continues asserts the effect change in law enforcement level of suspicion requirement for law enforcement to search and seize. According to the Hewitt ( 1999), another effect of the ruling of the Wyoming v. Houghton change law enforcement regulation was traditional requirement of individual suspicion were broaden in special needs situations. The second impact Wyoming v. Houghton case change the criminal procedure was in the expectation of privacy. The expectation of privacy is define as a belief in the existence of freedom from unwanted governmental intrusion in something or place (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, 1996). Hewitt concludes the requirements of exception of privacy which is a person must show that their privacy rights were violated by law enforcement and the violation should be logical to society. After privacy right has shown in violation, the courts would then decide whether the privacy right of a erson is reasonable or not. For example, in the case U. S. Supreme Court justified how the Sandra privacy right was violated due to fact the officer had any reason to search her. Hewitt continues to argue how privacy rights are limited in automobile search. The third impact of Wyoming v. Houghton had on criminal procedure was the automobile exception. In the automobile exception in which allow automobi le searches and seizures to be conducted if there is a valid reason that a suspect may be detaining contraband or anything illegal can be hide in container. The Wyoming v. Houghton changes criminal procedure because it allows law enforcement to conduct more searches to validate more criminal activity. The fourth impact was law established that address warrantless search of passengers’ possession. This law was called consensual search law. In consensual search law give law enforcement more authority to search and seize anything in vehicle regardless of who had own it or not. The law enforcement only had to have permission of the driver to conduct a search. The impact of this law is law enforcement could also search passengers’ procession as well without their consent. According to Hewitt (1999), Justice Breyer addressed the points made by the majority. Justice Bryer concludes from the majority rule should apply in how law enforcement conducted their automobile searches and it did not serve a purpose for searching passengers. However, Justice Stevens opposed the majority’s opinion. He believes that Officer Baldwin in the case should have been more caution of protecting the privacy of Houghton. He continues to stress that there was not enough probable cause that was established by the officer to search Houghton’s purse for drugs. Justice Steven main concern was the equality between law enforcement and individuals. Hewitt continues to examine that Justice Steven’s opinions was base of the theory of U. S. v. Di Re. Hewitt concludes, that Justice Steven made a valid point when he illustrates that there was no difference between the ruling in U. S. Di Re and the Wyoming case. The United States v. Di Re the significant of the case is the court rule that law enforcement are not allow to use the automobile exception rule when searching a passengers ‘s pockets and underwear (Zaleman, 2008). Justice Steven’s dissent clearly states that their no difference in both Di Re and Houghton’s interference of privacy. According to Hewitt (1999), Justice Stevens emphasized that the courts should rule to require law enforcement to request a warrant, which would protect the help protect the privacy rights of individuals more. In † Better-off walking: Wyoming v. Houghton emempfies what Acevedo failed to rectify†, illustrate how Wyoming v. Houghton ruling modified the ruling that California v. Acevedo, written by Erin Meadows, indicates that more effective than Acevedo. Meadows examine the case and illustrate the advantages of the new rule change in law enforcement regulation and lower courts administrative. He also examines the history of automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement and how new rule change other ruling. However, California v. Acevedo did not have an impact on the court decision. The Acevedo ruling was only used during certain situation where law enforcement had lack of probable cause in performing automobile searches . In California v. Acevedo (1991) rule that a law enforcement could search automobile’s truck if have reason to believe that any container located in truck had drugs in it. Houghton provided more bright-line rule. The reason for bright-line rule was to establish the balance between law enforcement officer regulations and citizens’ Fourth Amendment. The effects of the bright-line would prohibit illegal search from happening (Meadow, 2000). The new rule provided effective advantages to law enforcement officer. Some of the advantages of the new rule for law enforcement officer are time management. In effects of the new rule, law enforcement has more time to prevent crimes from happening and less time spent on warrant requests. Second advantage of the change of law enforcement procedure is the limit of area could be search. New law limited area searches played a major role prevention of citizens’ privacy rights being violated. Wyoming v. Houghton, â€Å"police should not be allowed to search passenger procession unless probable was established to assume the passenger procession illegal contraband (Meadows, 2000). It shown in that this case had major impact on violation of privacy in the 4th Amendment. Although, the new rule is in effect, there is still some more improvement needed to control the abuse of law enforcement. Law enforcement are now more pressure to protect privacy rights of individuals and now being look at more careful by courts. For example, after the ruling in Houghton case more is Thornton v. United States (2004), Arizona v. Gant (2008), and law enforcement are still being questioned. Will this ever stop on time will tell? Work Cited 1.Chase, Carol A., â€Å" Privacy Takes a back seat : putting the automobile exception back on track after several wrong turns†, 41 b.c.l. rev. p.71,(1999) 2.Expectation of Privacy. (1996). Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law. Retrieved November 26, 2010 From Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.references.com/browse /Expectation of 3. Meadows, E. M. (March 2000). Better-off walking: Wyoming v. Houghton exemplifies what Acevedo failed to rectify. University of Richmond Law Review, 34, 1. P.329-358. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from LegalTrac via Gale: http://library.limestone.edu:2054/gtx/start.do?prodId=LT&userGroupName=limestonecoll 4. â€Å"Napo Files Amicus Cupriae Belief to U.S. Supreme Court, NAPO Press Release. November 9, 1998 Retrieved November 10, 2010, http//www.napo.org/press_wyoming _nov 98.html 5. Wyoming v. Sandra Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999). Retrieved November 13, 2010 from http://openjurist .org/526/US/295/Wyoming –v-Sandra-Houghton 6. Wy oming v. Houghton, No. 98-184. April 5, 1999. Retrieved November 13, 2010 from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=98-184 7. Zaleman, M. (2008) Criminal Procedure Constitution and Society. (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ. Person Prentice Hall Publishing Company.