Draper v. United States Case

Case: Draper v. United States Facts: A narcotics agent received some information from an informant with whom he spoke regularly that a man, Draper, was selling illegal drugs. Additionally, the informant told the agent that Draper would be in a certain area with a tan bag and that he would be moving quite quickly. After staking out the area for a couple of days, the agent spotted a man fitÝng this description and arrested him, searching his person and finding envelopes of drugs. The informant was unable to testify at trial due to his death four days later. Issue: Did the agent have enough probable cause to conduct a search of the defendant’s person? Holding: Yes, the agent had enough probable cause to search the defendant’s person. Reasoning: Had the agent not investigated the information from the informant further (which, while technically hearsay, had been proven time and time again to have been reliable) he would have been forsaking his duty as an ofÏcer of the law. Additionally, the description given by the informant matched the defendant’s description well. Case: Payton vs. New York Facts: New York police believed that they had gathered enough evidence giving them probable cause to believe that the murder of a gas station manager was the fault of Payton, the defendant. Without a warrant, they went to the defendant’s residence intending to arrest him for the murder. With no answer upon announcing their arrival, detectives obtained a crowbar and forced the door open, discovering a pistol which was in plain view and admitÝng it into evidence in the murder trial. Issue: Did the warrantless search violate the defendant’s rights against unreasonable search and seizure? Holding: Yes, the warrantless search violated the defendant’s fourth amendment rights. Reasoning: The Constitution does not specifically provide guidelines for warrantless searches, but does state that warrants must be specific and founded on probable cause. The fact that no warrant was obtained implies a violation of the defendant’s fourth amendment rights. The main point of requiring a warrant is to protect innocent people from having their property violated by government overreach. Case: Tenessee v. Garner Facts: OfÏcers were called to investigate suspicious activity in a neighborhood. Upon their arrival, a woman pointed to another house and claimed she had heard glass breaking. After moving towards the building, ofÏcers spotted a man fleeing the scene. One of the ofÏcers ordered the fleeing suspect to stop and he did not comply; the ofÏcer shot at the suspect, resulting in his death. At the time of the shooting, the ofÏcers believed that the suspect was unarmed. Issue: Did the use of deadly force in an attempt to apprehend the suspect violate his fourteenth amendment rights? Holding: Yes, the use of deadly force in this situation was unconstitutional. Reasoning: Because the suspect was unarmed, a reasonable person would assume that he posed no immediate threat to the general population—therefore, the use of deadly force was too extreme in this case. Case: Graham v. Connor Facts: Graham, a man with diabetes, went to the store with a friend to obtain something sugary due to the fact that his blood sugar was low. Rushing into the store and finding a long line ahead, Graham decided it would be best to head to another store and rushed back out. As he did so, he attracted the attention of ofÏcer Connor, who stopped the two men to ask them why they were behaving as they were. Graham explained that he was diabetic and needed sugar, and the ofÏcer ordered him to remain where he was while he investigated what happened at the convenience store. During this time, Graham passed out and ofÏcers restrained him, causing several severe injuries due to using force and refusing to allow him to have some orange juice when he came to again. After the report from the convenience store came back, the ofÏcers drove Graham home and released him. Issue: Did the use of violent force against Graham violate his fourteenth amendment rights? Holding: Yes, the use of violent force against Graham violated his fourteenth amendment rights. Reasoning: Graham posed no immediate threat to the general population. Even if he had been, as some ofÏcers believed, intoxicated, simply restraining him so that he could not re-enter his vehicle would have been enough to protect the general population from harm. The force which the ofÏcers used against Graham was disproportionate to any perceived threat he may have carried. Case: Atwater v. Lago Vista Facts: Atwater was driving her car with her two small children. Neither of her children were wearing seatbelts—due to this, she was stopped by an ofÏcer. Atwater was then arrested and detained for one hour, claiming that ofÏcers were rough with her. Issue: Did Atwater’s detainment following a minor violation violate her Fourth Amendment rights? Holding: No, Atwater’s detainment did not violate her Fourth Amendment rights. Reasoning: The court asserted that the ofÏcer, first of all, had probable cause to charge Atwater with a crime as it was plainly evident that her children were not buckled in. As for the arrest, the court asserted that making a distinction between “minor” and “arrestable” offenses would be too involved and by all accounts, it would be simpler to rule the arrest as fair. Case: Maryland v. King Facts: King was arrested on charges of assault and was subjected to a DNA swab. After his DNA was put into the national database, it returned with a match to a previous rape case. Issue: Did the DNA swab violate King’s Fourth Amendment rights? Holding: No, the DNA swab did not violate King’s Fourth Amendment rights. Reasoning: The DNA swab is a routine part of police procedure during detainment, akin to fingerprinting or taking pictures.