In Minnesota v. Dickerson, the search would probably have been ...

[jho37]

In Minnesota v. Dickerson, the search would probably have been considered valid if the officer had testified that, although what he touched did not feel like a weapon, it was immediately apparent to him, given his experience and the totality of circumstances, that the object was contraband. Do you think that this encourages officers to be deceitful? Explain your position.
 
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

What are the major Court holdings regarding racial profiling and equal protection cited in the textbook? Which holdings do you agree with, and which do you disagree with? Explain your position.
 
  What will be an ideal response?

[triiciiaa]

Answer to Question 1

I do not think this encourages officers to be deceitful, because there is still a
requirement that it be reasonable, and judges will use the reasonableness standard to
evaluate the officer's testimony. For example, if the officer says it was immediately
apparent to him that what he felt was rock cocaine, when the rock was shaped like a
marble, the judge would be skeptical of what the officer said.

Answer to Question 2

The major Court holdings regarding racial profiling and equal protection are United
States v. Sokolow, Whren v. United States, Brown v. Oneonta, and United States
v. Travis. I agree with all of them, because they are efforts at determining the
primary motivation of the officer. Is the officer making the stop primarily due to the
race of the person, or is it primarily due to another reason, and race happens to be
involved?

[jho37]

Wow, this really help

[kjohnson]

Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it