The question is if the 4th Amendment and the exclusionary rule prevent the government from using the drugs against Eddie at his trial? In my judgment, the exclusionary rule and the 4th Amendment does not apply to Eddie's case, resulting that the drugs can be used against him. I have several reasons for concluding that this is the case. First, the stop of the car was constitutional; the police had a reasonable cause. Second, the search of the car was constitutional, the police had probable cause and they didn't need a warrant. Third, the search of the battery compartment was valid.
Was the stop of the car constitutional? Yes it was valid; the police had a reasonable cause. This proves that the 4th Amendment and the exclusionary rule does not apply to Eddie's case and therefore the drugs can be used against him because the police need a reasonable cause to stop a car and they had one. In the Terry v. Ohio case for example, the police saw two men on a corner talking to each other. One man left the corner and walked by several stores and walked slowly by one looking very carefully into its window. He then returned to the corner and the other man did the same thing, they each did the same thing an excess amount of times. The police then arrested them and found weapons. The suspects argued that when the police detained and frisked them that the police were violating their 4th Amendment rights. The suspects lost the case since their was enough evidence that the average person would think a crime might be happening. (1) Reasonable cause is defined as having enough evidence that the average person would think a crime might be happening. The police stopped the car because they suspected that he had a warrant, because the police officer recalled seeing his photo on a wanted bulletin. When Eddie saw the cops, he quickly turned his face away from the officer, which looked very suspicious like he was trying to avoid being seen.