Police Knowledge Test

1) Traffic Stops: Police Powers to conduct motor vehicle stops falls under what amendment?

2) Is Probable Cause needed to stop a motor vehicle?
Yes No

3) Two troopers on a squad are having a discussion on searches. Trooper Jones states that when a trooper stops a motor vehicle that this action constitutes a seizure of both the motorist and the car. Trooper Smith disagrees and states that a motor vehicle stop is not considered a seizure of the vehicle or the person. A motor vehicle stop is merely brief detention based on a violation or perceived violation, and does not infringe on a motorists constitutional rights. Which Trooper is Correct?
Trooper Jones Trooper Smith

4) Ordering a driver out of a vehicle with No additional justification other then just having him exit is not allowed by law and S.O.P. True False


5) Trooper Smith is off duty and shopping in the mall when he observes a young child being pulled away from his/her parents. The child is yelling for help as are his/her parents. The person that grabbed the young child is a tall man. He is dragging the child as he runs towards his vehicle. Trooper Smith follows the person and observes the man throw the child into a van. Trooper Smith realizes that he is too far from the person to stop him. He observes that the child is out of sight and the vehicle is in an isolated area of the parking lot. There are no people around for him to yell out to for assistance. Immediately after making these assessments, Trooper Smith pulled out his weapon and yelled to the subject "State Police Stop". The man ignores his command and begins to enter the driver’s seat of the van. Trooper Smith then discharges two (2) rounds into the subject fatally wounding him. Is Trooper Smith justified in using deadly force during this situation?
If yes, Explain

If no, Explain



Answers

1) 4th Amendment
2) No. Reasonable Suspicion is needed to stop a motor vehicle.
(United States v. Hensley 469 U.S. 221)
Held:
1) Where police have been unable to locate a person suspected of involvement in a past crime, the ability to briefly stop that person, ask questions, or check identification in the absence of probable cause promotes the strong government interest in solving crimes and bringing offenders to justice. Restraining police action until after probable cause is obtained would not only hinder the investigation but might also enable the suspect to flee and remain at large. The law enforcement interests at stake in these circumstances outweigh the individual's [469 U.S. 221, 222] interest to be free of a stop and detention that is no more extensive than permissible in the investigation of imminent or ongoing crimes. When police have a reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection with a completed felony, then a Terry stop may be made to investigate that suspicion. Pp. 227-229.
Briefly, additional case law on subject:
A police officer's observation of a person operating a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates something may be wrong with the vehicle or its driver is one recognized circumstance in which the police may take appropriate action in the performance of their community care taking responsibilities For example, in State v. Martinez, 260 NJ Super 75, 78, 615 A2d 279 (AppDiv 1992) we stated that a police officer's observations of a motor vehicle being driven at less than 10 m.p.h. "suggest a number of objectively reasonable concerns," including that "something might be wrong with the car .and its driver. Consequently, we held that these concerns justified "the minimal intrusion involved in a simple inquiry stop." Id.á Similarly, in State v. Goetaski, 209 NJ Super 362, 507 A2d 751 (AppDiv 1986), we upheld the validity under the community care taking doctrine of a stop of









Answer to Question 2 Continued...

COMMONWEALTH vs. VICTOR J. LUBIEJEWSKI
2) An investigatory stop of a motor vehicle may be justified if the Commonwealth proves "that the police had a reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences therefrom, that [the operator] of the . . . motor vehicle had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime." Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 423 Mass. 266, 268 (1996). Accord Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 427 Mass. 277, 280-281 (1998). "[I]f the police conduct an investigatory stop based on an informant's tip, our evaluation of the tip's indicia of reliability will be focused on the informant's reliability and his or her basis of knowledge. . . . Because the standard is reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause, a less rigorous showing in each of these areas is permissible." Commonwealth v. Lyons, 409 Mass. 16, 19 (1990).
Other cases on Reasonable Suspicion or relating to it
United States v. Sharpe. 470 U.S. 675 (1985)
Delaware v. Prouse 440 U.S. 648 (1979)

3) Trooper Jones. When a police officer, through a show of lawful authority, causes a motorist to stop his car, this action constitutes a seizure of both the motorist and the car.
(Delaware v. Prouse. 440 U.S. 648)
4) True and False. Case law states that a driver can be ordered out without a reason. SOP states that the trooper can do it for trooper safety or to determine impairment. Or if there is indications of criminal activity.

5) Yes, AG’s Guidelines on Use of Force / S.O.P. B22 (Use of Force)