Law Homework Help

Assignment 1 ( 1 page)

For this discussion, you will explore reasonable suspicion and its application to suspicious people and vehicles.

Scenario: You are a new law enforcement officer assigned to the night shift. You are watching for hand-to-hand drug deals outside of a bar known for drug use and sales. You see two men meet on the sidewalk in front of the bar. One man discreetly hands another man a baggie in exchange for cash. Both quickly walk away in separate directions. The man who had passed the baggie is an adult white male known to you as John Smith. You have had prior contacts with John for narcotic-related arrests. You watch John walk into the bar parking lot, enter a dark blue, four-door vehicle license plate ABD-7171, and drive away on a public roadway.

Instructions:

In your initial post:

• Explain and justify why you are able to stop John and his vehicle based on Constitutional law.
• Once stopped, discuss what you would do next and explain why you may be able to “frisk” the interior of the vehicle.

Assignment 2 – ( 1 page)

The environmental controversy for this week revolves around the use of paper or plastic bags, and whether the consumer should have to pay for them.

Plastic bags are thought to harm the environment, and thus raise several different issues. Along with this issue comes the “precautionary principle.” This principle states that all new chemicals and technologies should be assumed to be harmful until proven otherwise and that all commercial products that are suspected of being harmful must be removed from the market until studies can demonstrate that they are safe.

Advocates of the principle argue that when dealing with chemicals and technologies, it is better to be safe than sorry. Critics reply that nothing is absolutely safe and that the precautionary principle is unrealistic and would seriously hinder the development of needed drugs, pesticides and other products. Furthermore, the costs of thoroughly testing all controversial chemicals and technologies to prove their “safety” would be prohibitive.

What do you think of these statements? With whom do you agree or disagree and why?