The Change in Law Enforcement's Procedure to
Protect Passenger's Rights Instructor
The Change in Law Enforcement’s Procedure to Protect Passenger’s Rights
Instructor: Dr. Betsy Witt
CRJ 340
Tarsha Jackson
Limestone University
In Wyoming v. Houghton (1999) impacted law enforcement procedure by its ruling states that law enforcement officer have a right to search a passenger’s personal possession, only if the law enforcement officer could present probable cause or the officer could prove contrabands and illegal activity . The automobile exception is recognized under the 4th Amendment to eliminate the requirements for search warrant of automobiles when there is probable cause established that contraband was located in the vehicle and illegal activities were involved (Chase, 1999, p.71). This paper will examine Wyoming v. Houghton case and the impact on law enforcement procedures in relate to Wyoming Supreme Court wrongful ruling. It will also examine two journals related to how Wyoming’s ruling effected probable cause standards.
According to Wyoming v. Houghton (1999), was first developed on July 23, 1995 when David Young’s car was stopped for a traffic violation by Wyoming Highway Patrol Officer, Delaine Baldwin. Baldwin noticed that Young’s car had a broken brake light and Young was also traveling over the speed limit. Young’s passenger was his girlfriend and a young lady named Sandra Houghton. When the patrol officer approached the vehicle he noticed the syringe that was sticking out of Young’s shirt pocket. After his reasonable suspicion and probable cause, Officer Baldwin followed his procedure and demanded everyone to stand on road close to the car. Young was cross-examined from Officer Baldwin in reference to the syringe. Young told the officer the syringe was used for his drug usages (Wyoming v. Houghton, 1999).
The officer asked both of passengers for their identification. However, Sandra Houghton responded her name was Sandra James and she did not have driver license. Baldwin had a valid reason to search the car. The
Instructor: Dr. Betsy Witt
CRJ 340
Tarsha Jackson
Limestone University
In Wyoming v. Houghton (1999) impacted law enforcement procedure by its ruling states that law enforcement officer have a right to search a passenger’s personal possession, only if the law enforcement officer could present probable cause or the officer could prove contrabands and illegal activity . The automobile exception is recognized under the 4th Amendment to eliminate the requirements for search warrant of automobiles when there is probable cause established that contraband was located in the vehicle and illegal activities were involved (Chase, 1999, p.71). This paper will examine Wyoming v. Houghton case and the impact on law enforcement procedures in relate to Wyoming Supreme Court wrongful ruling. It will also examine two journals related to how Wyoming’s ruling effected probable cause standards.
According to Wyoming v. Houghton (1999), was first developed on July 23, 1995 when David Young’s car was stopped for a traffic violation by Wyoming Highway Patrol Officer, Delaine Baldwin. Baldwin noticed that Young’s car had a broken brake light and Young was also traveling over the speed limit. Young’s passenger was his girlfriend and a young lady named Sandra Houghton. When the patrol officer approached the vehicle he noticed the syringe that was sticking out of Young’s shirt pocket. After his reasonable suspicion and probable cause, Officer Baldwin followed his procedure and demanded everyone to stand on road close to the car. Young was cross-examined from Officer Baldwin in reference to the syringe. Young told the officer the syringe was used for his drug usages (Wyoming v. Houghton, 1999).
The officer asked both of passengers for their identification. However, Sandra Houghton responded her name was Sandra James and she did not have driver license. Baldwin had a valid reason to search the car. The
Cited: 1. Chase, Carol A., “ Privacy Takes a back seat : putting the automobile exception back on track after several wrong turns”, 41 b.c.l. rev. p.71,(1999) 2. Expectation of Privacy. (1996). Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law. Retrieved November 26, 2010 From Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.references.com/browse /Expectation of 3. Meadows, E. M. (March 2000). Better-off walking: Wyoming v. Houghton exemplifies what Acevedo failed to rectify. University of Richmond Law Review, 34, 1. P.329-358. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from LegalTrac via Gale: http://library.limestone.edu:2054/gtx/start.do?prodId=LT&userGroupName=limestonecoll 4. “Napo Files Amicus Cupriae Belief to U.S. Supreme Court, NAPO Press Release. November 9, 1998 Retrieved November 10, 2010, http//www.napo.org/press_wyoming _nov 98.html 5. Wyoming v. Sandra Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999). Retrieved November 13, 2010 from http://openjurist .org/526/US/295/Wyoming –v-Sandra-Houghton 6. Wyoming v. Houghton, No. 98-184. April 5, 1999. Retrieved November 13, 2010 from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=98-184 7. Zaleman, M. (2008) Criminal Procedure Constitution and Society. (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ. Person Prentice Hall Publishing Company.