He can prove this by proving that he had placed his wallet and watch in the locker room and when he returned the items were missing. Bob and AMC had a mutual bailment which means they are responsible for his missing
If you are riding in the car with an individual and the police pull you over is it okay for the police to arrest the passenger in the car even if he or she says that the contraband that he finds is not his? Another hypothetical question is this, Assume that police discover a crime that has been committed by one person, they go to seven people with questions about the crime, they all deny culpability, and the police already know that one of the guys is guilty. Can all six of these guys be arrested for this one crime even though police don’t really know which person is guilty? There are simple and easy answers to all of these questions : it depends if the police have “probable cause” to think that a person should be arrested and is guilty of a particular crime. That was the complicated part in the Pringle case that was brought out by the Supreme Court.
The use of bait cars in our community have been a problem. Criminals want to say that it is entrapment. I feel that if you brake the law, you’ve done wrong. The time, day, or even the situation should not be looked at, but the crime that was committed. It should not matter if I left my keys in the car, or if the police left their keys in a bait car, if stolen it is wrong.
He ordered Yatcilla to place the car against a pillar, radioed in an "auto accident" involving a "fixed object," and then ordered Colon to write a report indicating that Brady had swerved to avoid an oncoming car, mounted the sidewalk, and struck the pillar. Neither Colon nor Yatcilla seems to have objected to staging an accident or filing a false report. Yet, filing a false report commits at least two offences: Tampering with a Public Record; and Obstruction of the Administration of the Law. Each is a second-degree misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum of two years in prison. (4) Staging an accident is Insurance Fraud, a third degree felony punishable by a maximum of seven years imprisonment.
It is undisputed that the automobile is stolen and title is void. Appellants couldn’t legally transfer title and therefore the subsequent sale is a breach of warranty of good title. The owner did not assent to the transfer of the automobile and therefore the appellants had no title. RULES OF LAW: A person who has goods of another cannot pass title whether such other knew or did not know that goods were stolen. A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good to a good faith purchaser for value.
Was the “pat-down” of the driver legal? Yes, Officer Smith had a legal right to request the driver out of the vehicle for a pat-down. In the case of Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court discussed the requirement of dealing with armed and dangerous individuals. The court stated that an officer does not need probable cause to arrest in order to conduct a reasonable search for weapons as long as the suspicion is developed by factual information. In this fact pattern, Officer Smith acted on facts that a car matching the description of the automobile current pulled over of possibly being involved in a previous case involving a fellow officer murdered on the road side.
As in; Harris vs U.S. (1968). An officer used a registration found in a car that was impounded as evidence in a robbery trial. The Supreme Court deemed the evidence was admissible as it was in plain view and the officer had just reason to be there. The automobile exception put simply is, there is no need of a warrant for a vehicle if police believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime or contraband. A search of a defendant’s car produced drugs in a paper bag, and a leather pouch of cash.
United States V. Ross 456 U.S. 798 (1982) Facts: On November 27, 1978, Washington, D.C. police detectives received a tip from a reliable informant describing a man known as “Bandit” who was selling illegal narcotics that were kept in the trunk of his car. The reliable informant gave the location of the car and description of both the car and driver. The District of Columbia police officers immediately drove to the location, found the parked car, and called for a computer check on the car, which confirmed that the owner matched the description and used the alias “Bandit”. Shortly thereafter the police observed the car being driven by a man who matched the informant’s description. They stopped the car and ordered the driver out.
Burglary is a forcible break in at a residence or a building, which is closed Theft is the main reason for burglary; the robber is looking for valuables to sell for money. Four kinds of burglary, completed burglary, which means a person has gained entry into a structure without permission or knowledge of the land owner by force and non-forceful ways. Forcible entry is a burglary, which the robber gained entrance by breaking a window or lock, screen. Unlawful entry, which means with no force, the robber had no reason for being on
As well as, if an officer asks a person if s/he can search their car, and the individual agrees, there is no need for a warrant. When the individual themselves verbally consents to the officer searching their property, the officer has the right to look for what they are looking for. This would come into play if a person was pulled over for DUI, the officer can ask the individual to search their car looking for open containers, if the individual agrees the search will begin. If the officer notices an open container, and the individual has failed the sobriety field test then a search of the