Exclusionary Rule

Exclusionary Rule

Introduction

Caption

Joe Taxpayer vs The State of Atlanta

Introductory Statement

In the case of Joe vs Atlanta, there are clear facts in the case which suggest that the client, Joe Taxpayer was handled inappropriately by Police officer Donut. The client's right under the 4th Amendment has been threatened as he was harshly seized and searched by the mentioned officer that led to the arrest of the client. The client's rights in this scenario are clearly protected by the provisions of the 4th amendment as the statement of facts regarding the case will clearly show the evidence against the client's perspective. The role of the police officers patrolling the street activities has been under great scrutiny by the legal fraternity, as several complex dilemmas have occurred in this regard. The police officer's in America are aware of the danger of armed confrontation form the general public, and due to this danger numerous officers have lost their lives in the line of duty [392 U.S. 1, 24]. The fact is that the police officers in America have to be alert and prepared for any credible chance of armed confrontation, and they have the right to ascertain whether any individual in the public holds a concealed weapon (Bickel, 1973). The police officers while performing their standard duties must ensure their own personal safety standards and the actions they undertake to act under credible circumstances are appropriate. The most important element in this perspective is the objective view of the police officers, and their exercise of appropriate use of their authority (Dworkin, 1999).

The Terry vs Ohio case is relevant in this regard, as it provides several important insights. In the case for Joe Taxpayer vs Atlanta State, the circumstances are very similar to the mentioned case, albeit the crucial differences. The details of the court's ruling can be analyzed and used to define the role of the police officers in the activity of seizing the citizens and searching for any unlawful object in their possession. The details from the case can be utilized to plead the innocence of Joe Taxpayer, and eventually prove the inappropriate use of force and search activities by officer Donut.

Discussion

Statement of Facts

The client Joe Taxpayer has no official criminal record and is a responsible citizen. He had a turbulent history in the area of down town Atlanta, as he had been mugged in this area up to 4 times in the past. Due to his business related obligations, Joe had to visit the area and transport certain dusty boxes. In light of his history in the area and the nature of the task, Joe decided to wear old clothes, and carry a weapon for personal safety. He was aware of the illegality of the weapon, but due to his adverse history in the given area; he was motivated to protect himself by any means.

Joe had absolutely no intention to physically harm any citizen or in fact carry out an armed robbery. While in the area he went to the ATM ...