No warrant was obtained for these searches. Ross’ attorneys made a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence found in the bag and the pouch on the grounds that the warrantless search of the car does not extend to searching closed containers found within. Ross was subsequently convicted of possession of heroin with intent to distribute. The heroin and currency found in the searches having been introduced in evidence after Ross’ pretrial motion to suppress the evidence had been denied. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, while the officers had probable cause to stop and search Ross’s car,
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.
During another search, police found even more evidence. Procedural History: The case was Issues: Issue 1: Whether the exclusionary rule applies in this case. The rule forbids using illegally obtained evidence in court unless it was an emergency circumstance. However, the police stated there were exigent circumstances that surpassed the need for a warrant. At the same time under the police-created exigency doctrine, exigent circumstances do not justify a warrantless search if the circumstances were created by the police [ii].
It states that no object may be used in court as evidence if obtained illegally or without a proper search warrant. Legal questions to be addressed by the court: Whether the exclusionary rule is appropriate for violation of the knock-and-announce requirement? The decision of the court: With a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that the exclusionary rule is not appropriate for violations of the knock and announce rule. The Court noted that a knock-notice violation is rarely the “but-for” cause of obtaining inculpatory evidence. Consequently, when the police violate knock-notice rules by not announcing their presence or waiting sufficient time before forcing their way in),
Since Mapp and other significant decisions, innocent people have been subjected to fewer unconstitutional searches, not necessarily because the police fear the exclusion of evidence but because of the potential for civil liability, citizen complaints, and the like. The rules of law decided in Mapp v. Ohio relate to the relevant facts in the fact pattern based on the Fourth Amendment violation. Det. Quickdraw is a representative for the government, but he failed to uphold the law by not following the correct criminal procedure for search and seizure. In conclusion, if I were the judge ruling in this case, I could apply the exclusionary rule and any evidence that was obtained during the unlawful search would not be admissible.
Administration of Justice Name: Period: 7-9 Date: 1/11/12 Title: Man Gets DUI in S.C. McDonald's Drive-Thru Paper: Officer.com Date of Paper: 12/15/11 Author: Nicole Smith Summary: This article is about a man who was accused of a DUI in a McDonald’s drive thru in South Carolina. While he was in the drive thru, he hit a car over by Cherry Road near Winthrop University. The man was clearly under the influence and had a strong alcohol smell. He lost his balance several time and was slurring his words. The man used the Breathalyzer and was a 0.21.
If DLK had over 100 plants in his house, there is no possible way he could have moved them all before authorities caught him. In document A1, the author states, “The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless search was valid because otherwise, Carroll might drive away and the evidence would disappear.” In this case, the search was valid against Carroll because he could have easily driven away with the liquor in his car; therefore, some could argue the officials were in “hot pursuit,” giving them permission to do so. It is physically impossible, not just for DLK, but for any person to transport over 100 marijuana plants without there being sight of
He does not present enough proof to believe that less enforcement will in fact lower violence in gangs. Gangs are a complex and fairly intelligent corporation that will try and stop at nothing to get what they want with any means possible. Drugs do have a major role in gang violence, like Gardner says, but stopping the drug trade in my eyes won’t in fact end their
Essay 4: Drunk Driving in Austin, Texas Drunk Driving is becoming a major concern in Austin, Texas today. "Driving under the influence" (DUI) and "driving while intoxicated" (DWI) are two names for the crime of drunk driving. Other statutory names for this crime are "operating under the influence" (OUI) and "operating while intoxicated" (OWI). The different names for the crime reflect differences in the state statutes that define the crime. Hence, all the statutes have the common purpose of punishing drunk driving and driving under the influence of illegal drugs.
A search of a defendant’s car produced drugs in a paper bag, and a leather pouch of cash. The paper bag was deemed admissible in court while the leather pouch was thrown out. There was a “greater expectation of privacy” with the pouch. U.S. v Ross (1982) Search incident to lawful arrest is when a person is arrested the police may search the person and any area within that person’s reach. There is no warrant required for this but the officer must have probable cause for the arrest.