Professor Plum Case Summary

The legality of the arrest/search of Professor Plum: Under the facts given in Professor Plum’s case the arrest and search of him are also valid. While conducting the stop, Officer Provenza smelled alcohol coming from Professor Plum’s breath. This gave the officer reason to conduct the breathalyzer test. The results showed that Professor Plum was a .16, double what the legal limit is. Under the rule of law, officers need Probable cause to make a warrantless arrest. Probable cause states that there should be sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime. In this case the .16 intoxication level is sufficient evidence that a crime has occurred. Driving under the

There exist four different ways in which an officer can search a suspect’s vehicle. The first way is by obtaining consent from the owner of the vehicle. The second way is the “safety prong” or the “evidentiary prong” (556 U.S. 322, 2009).The safety prong states that an officer can search a suspect’s vehicle for safety purposes. However, this can only occur if the suspect is still unsecure and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment of the vehicle at the time of the search (cops, 2009). Officers can also search a vehicle under the “evidentiary prong” (556 U.S. 322, 2009). The evidentiary prong state that it is reasonable for an officer to believe that evidence relating to the crime arrested for can be found in the vehicle. The third way to search a car without a warrant is by using the automobile exception rule that resulted from Carroll V. United States. This rule states that officers can search a vehicle without a search warrant as long as they have probable cause to believe evidence or contraband is located in the vehicle (267 U.S. 132, 1925). Lastly, the inventory search of a car before it gets impounded. The only rule that can best justify the search of professor plums vehicle is the inventory search