Free The States Traffic Laws Essay Sample
The states traffic laws regulate the users of the roads who are cyclists and motorists. The interaction between vehicles and other users of the road is governed by the traffic laws. These laws entails, rules regulating the speed limit of the vehicles, roads conditions, vehicles conditions and laws regulating the driver’s conducts in the roads (Gilbert 1995).
According to the American traffic laws a traffic officer in patrol has several duties road, they include crimes detection, apprehension of traffic laws violators in addition they also duty to stop any vehicle which they feel it has any suspicious thing, therefore as far as this case is concerned when officer smith suspected the vehicle had as problem in taillight he was obligated to stop the car. Since he suspected that the vehicle was not in a good condition he had to stop it. With all the duties of a police officer smith had all the reason to stop the car as long as he was in his line of duty (Palmiotto & Mckenney-Brown 2007)
In United States when an officer in his line of duty he/she can frisk a vehicle they suspect it can be having any illegal staff. In this case the night officer in protection of the interest of the United States public as well as his life he was entitled to ask the female driver for the pat down. Whenever there is suspicion, an officer in duty is allowed by law to ask for pat down. When he stops the car he has duty of investigating it and can only do so when the occupants including the driver are out of the vehicle. In this case officer smith was legally allowed to stop as well as to ask for the pat down, this make it for the officer to ask for the pat down.
When the officer asked the driver to produce all the necessary documents, the driver was supposed to produce them without hesitation if she was the legal owner of the vehicle. The fleeing of the car without showing the necessary documents increases the chances of suspicion that the driver was in an illegal activity or he/ she is not the legal owner of the vehicle. Since it a duty of an officer in patrol to apprehend any suspicious driver the officer is entitled to follow the vehicle when the driver fails to follow the instruction to stop the car (Stinchcomb 2003). It is clear from the evident given that the officer was furious and had enough suspicion and therefore had an exigent obligation to chase the driver to investigate her well.
In United States there are policies regulating firearms ownership, it has been evident that a good percentage of gun owners are legal and they are allowed by the states to have them in case of self defense where the policy was passed by the Supreme Court. Legal firearms holder are issued with a license of carrying them from the federal government or have a license from federal bureau of investigation (FBI). From research it’s evident that possession of gun intensifies crime and an increase in lethal violence. Speeding away act as indication that the woman was carrying something illegal that is the gun is probably unlawful. It could also imply that the involvement in crimes such homicides and drug trafficking, firearm used are usually illegal (Carter 2002). From the fact that there was no license in her belonging it’s an indication of illegal possession of firearm
It’s also evident that when the woman knew that she had no permit of holding the gun as well as no license and registration of the vehicle she had to speed away. She was also carrying marijuana which was discovered in glove compartment. In this case the evidence is admissible in court from the ruling in the case California vs. Acevedo. An officer suspected Acevedo for possession of marijuana and went ahead to search his vehicle. On taking the case to court, Acevedo’s attorney argued that the search was unconstitutional rendering the evidence in admissible (Ducat 2008). The trial court ruled out exclusion of evidence and on appeal the California court of appeal reversed the decision. But in conclusion the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence was admissible. Therefore the Marijuana baggie is admissible evidence from the above case.