Tyana Cullen

May 19
th
, 2014
Eli Cameron P1/2
United States vs. Sokolow
IRAC Essay
United States vs. Andrew Sokolow

In July of 1984, Andrew Sokolow and Janet Norian entered the airport and purchased
tickets for a flight to Miami from Honolulu Hawaii. Andrew purchased the $2,100 tickets with
$20 bills under the name of Andrew Kray. Neither Andrew nor Norian checked any of their four
pieces of luggage. Once Andrew and Norian left, the ticked agent informed Officer McCarthy of
the Honolulu Police Department of the respondents suspicious purchase.
Officer McCarthy looked into the situation and determined that their return date was on
the 25
th
, only three days later than they had left. He also discovered that they were booked to
stop and Denver and Los Angeles before returning back. During his stopover in LA, DEA Agent
Richard Kempshall recognized him and stopped him from catching a cab. Both respondents
were escorted to the DEA office where the couples luggage was examined by Donker, a
narcotics detecting dog. Andrews brown shoulder bag was taken, but no illicit drugs were
found, only suspicious documents indicating his involvement in drug trafficking. After another
day needed to get a warrant to search Norians bag, the agents found 1,063 grams of cocaine
the bag.
Now the question is whether or not the DEA had reasonable suspicion to interfere in the
respondents catching of a cab and state that they were engaged in any wrongdoing.
Andrew was indeed persuaded by actors of the state, Agent Kempshall and his three
fellow DEA agents. Under the tiers of police force, the issue of stop and detain brought forth
Tyana Cullen
May 19
th
, 2014
Eli Cameron P1/2
United States vs. Sokolow
during Terry vs. Ohio case brings up the fact that if an officer reasonably suspects that a
person.. is committing [a] crime, the authority to detain that person exists. The DEA were
suspicious due to his nervousness during the simple task of buying tickets, his continuous
paranoia while proceeding through the airport, and his need to keep his bags with him at all
times. He was also caught using his mothers maiden name, an act only one would do it they
were trying to hide something. Of course the act of him paying in $20 that where rolled up
could cause suspicion as well as his short stays in various locations. To stop and detain a
suspect the police must have reasonable suspicion, in which they had. Some might say that
his 4
th
Amendment rights were violated, but in this case, they were not. Donker, the drug dog,
was enough proof for the agents to get a warrant to search his bag. The officers did not violate
the privacy of the respondent until the warrant was authorized.
Overall, due to the engagement of stop and detain, the DEA had impeccable
reasonable suspicion and did not violate the 4
th
Amendment rights of Andrew, and therefore,
Andrew does not have standing.