Ken Krooks Case Study

Each time a police officer chooses to make an arrest, they demonstrate whether or not they practice the proper discretion that their career field expects of them. For the particular case involving Ken Krook, a young man who had attempted to rob a liquor store, while holding the store clerk at gun point. While Ken fled the scene, a responding officer had been notified on behalf of the specific crime that had taken place following a veg description of the individual. After noticing an individual who seemed to fit the description of Ken Kook, the officer ran after the criminal, eventually making an arrest. This case brings up the issue involving what is and is not a proper use of discretion, and whether the arrest of Ken Krook was done lawfully. Whether or not the police officer’s contact with Ken Krook was done lawfully depends on if the officer had an objective basis to back up her choice to proceed in making this particular arrest.
Under what is known as the Plain View Doctrine is called a search-related plain view, referring to items that are identified by the responding officer who was authorized to specifically search for it. In this particular case, the officer was authorized to search for a white, 6’0 tall individual who was wearing a black baseball cap, black t-shirt, and jeans. Even though this description is vague, this individual was in the area of the crime, did match the description, and acted merely suspicious in the officer’s presence. This initially identification is where the detention had occurred in this particular case. The plain view doctrine also states that an officer has the ability to make a warrantless seizure of an object that is involved in a crime if the officer can identify the object in plain view (Terry v. Ohio,