Whether a police officer's subjective intent should be considered in the context of a Fourth Amendment analysis involving a pretextual stop and unreasonable search and seizure

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Today’s culture — built upon centuries of systemic injustice — can no longer tolerate racial profiling, targeting and discrimination by the individuals who are endowed with the authority to “serve and protect”. This case presents an issue of common occurrence embedded in this racial discrimination — when a police officer pursues a motorist with the specific intent to follow him/her until a traffic violation occurs, for the sole purpose of justifying an otherwise illegal purpose. Though this Court has already addressed the constitutionality of pretextual stops in the past, the current societal climate in the United States, and across the world, calls for a modern re-evaluation to address the severe latitude law enforcement is afforded, the unwavering discriminatory practices prevalent in departments across the country, and the limited protections for everyday citizens, as a result. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a police officer’s subjective intent should be considered in the context of a Fourth Amendment analysis involving a pretextual stop and unreasonable search and seizure, notwithstanding the holding in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (Scalia, J.). 2. Whether the Fourth Amendment is violated when a police officer makes a pretextual, investigatory stop by aggressively pursuing a motorist for a prolonged period of time until a traffic violation occurs, thereby creating the probable cause necessary for the Automobile Exception to the warrant requirement. Both of these questions should be answered in the affirmative. 1