In this paper, the issue to be discussed is whether the standard of proof was required at each stage of this search, and seizure was met.

A police officer must reasonably believe that an offence has been committed, or is in progress, to stop a vehicle in Minnesota lawfully. The Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in State v Pike [1996] 543 N.W.2d 96 makes that rule of law. The police officer should be able to identify and set out the evidence supporting a rational belief that the driver or passenger is involved in illegal activity, or has been involved. That requirement is far less than likely cause or justification beyond a justifiable doubt, but the officer does require a basis for suspecting the driver or passenger of a crime. A police officer can not legally stop a car only because of a shot or to please his curiosity (Hackman, 2020). But even the most slight infringements of traffic include a fair presumption of wrongdoing and a legal stop of a motor vehicle. As stopping a car involves a seizure, the Fourth Amendment covers all investigatory stops of motor vehicles. Arbitrary searches and seizures are forbidden by the Fourth Amendment. If a police officer has no fair belief that motor vehicle passengers have committed an offense, the subsequent stopping of the vehicle can be considered to be unconstitutional (Kerr, 2015). Moreover, the police may use a drug dog to detect illegal drugs, if the proof is otherwise prohibited from being collected because of concerns about privacy and the Fourth Amendment. In Illinois v. Caballes [2005] 543 U.S. 405 case, it was decided by the Supreme Court of United States that the fourth amendment should not be infringed and the police did not need justifiable suspicion for using a drug-sniffing dog to sniff an automobile during a routine and legal stop in traffic.

In this given scenario, a police car stops the vehicle of Jeremy, James, and Richard to inspect the license and registration of their car because the license plate cover was covering a part of the license plate, which is against the Minnesota law. After observing the body language of Jeremy and out of suspicion, the officer askerd Jeremy whether they carry drugs with them or not. The first time Jeremy replied no, but when the officer told him that they have a drug dog to sniff the car quickly, then Jeremy confessed that they have drugs with them.

Here, because the license plate cover was covering a part of the license plate, thus by applying the rule of Minnesota traffic law, the standard met when Jeremy came out of the vehicle. By applying the rule of State v Pike case, the police officer should be able to identify and set out the evidence supporting a rational belief that the passenger is involved in illegal activity. Also, as the vehicle has been stopped during a routine and legal stop in traffic, thus by applying the rule of Illinois v. Caballes case, it can be said that the use of drug dogs, the search, and seizure of the inside contents of the sealed backpack are valid.  

Reference

Hackman, J. (2020). CRIMINAL LAW-SEA RCH AND SEIZURE: DETERMINING PROBABLE CAUSE RELATING TO” HANDS-FREE” LAWS. North Dakota Law Review, 95(1).

Kerr, O. S. (2015). An economic understanding of search and seizure law. U. Pa. L. Rev., 164, 591.