Case Citation: Kentucky. v.King, 563 U.S. (2011) Parties: Kentucky, Petitioner Hollis King, Respondent Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers entered an apartment building. They were in search of a suspect who had sold cocaine to an undercover informant. After a chase, police lost the suspect. They came to an apartment building where they smelled marijuana coming from one of the doors.
If the foreign national chooses to exercise that right, the peace officer shall notify the pertinent official in his or her agency or department of the arrest or detention and that the foreign national wants his or her consulate notified. All the evidence was used during the trial to convict Oliver of these charges. He was convicted for posession of a firearm in public and silencer and convicted for
They spotted Abner, who fit the description of an African American male wearing a vest. Without confirming him, or questioning him, they took him into custody, and put him in the car. In the car, he was assaulted by an officer until they reached the precinct. Once there, two officers brought him into the men’s restroom. One held Louima down, while the other penetrated his rectum with the end of a wooden plunger, perforating his colon and rupturing his bladder, and then forcing the object into his mouth, chipping a few teeth.
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),
8/30/11 Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952) Facts: On the morning of July 1, 1949, three deputy sheriffs of the county of Los Angeles received “some information that Rochin was selling narcotics.” With this information the three deputies went to the home of Rochin and found the outside door open. They entered and then forced open the door to Rochin’s room. Inside the room they found Rochin sitting on the side of the bed. The deputies saw two capsules on a night stand and asked Rochin, “Whose stuff is this?” Rochin then grabbed the capsules and put them in his mouth. A struggle ensued as the deputies attempted to extract the capsules from Rochin’s mouth.
While attempting to follow criminal procedure during the investigation of a suspected drug dealer, Sally Martin, Detective Quickdraw finds himself being questioned about the legality of the search and seizure of Martin’s home. Detective Quickdraw believed that all of the facts regarding Martin dealing cocaine were there and obvious. While working undercover and besides hearing through the streets that Martin’s home was known as the drug house, Quickdraw observed the in-and-out traffic at the residence, which further led him to believe that the allegations were true. Another relevant fact was when informant Sneaky Pete returned to Quickdraw’s unmarked police car with a small amount of cocaine, which was purchased from a man inside of Martin’s home. In addition, Sneaky Pete was inside of Martin’s residence long enough to detect items that looked suspicious, such as the digital scales and the square object wrapped in a garbage bag.
U.S vs Katz Facts: The petitioner, Katz, was convicted of transmitting illegal gambling information over the telephone lines from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami. These illegal transactions were in violation of the federal law. Katz used a public telephone booth to do these illegal gambling procedures. A surveillance was set up at these booths by the FBI which were listening devices and placed at the top of the booths so that the conversations could be recorded. The tapes from the conversations were entered into the trial as evidence.
This essay will discuss aspects of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Human Rights legislation and case law that supports any propositions. Webb and Goldwyn are drug dealers that have been arrested for supplying a Class ‘B’ controlled drug. PCs King and Hudson went undercover to gain Webb and Goldwyn’s trust, and as a result they purchased 5 kilos of cannabis resin from the dealers over a period of 5 weeks, and 5 transactions. This is all evidence against Webb and Goldwyn. Was the evidence obtained fairly by both PC King and Hudson?
Trident University Criminal Justice System Procedures (CJA 502) Summer 2010 Module 1 - Case 19 July 2010 Module 1 – Case Does the Federal Grand Jury System need to be reformed? Being that “Grand juries listen to evidence and decide if someone should be charged with a crime (Brenner, 2003)”, I believe the Grand Jury System to be in need of a reform. The evidence the grand juries hear, unlike a trial jury, is against the accused without allowing the accused to refute the evidence with evidence of his or her own. Other issues of concern as to why I believe in reformation of the grand jury system include: embarrassment, fear, manipulation, uphold rights, misconception, and unfairness. Illustrated statements for each aforementioned
It applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961). If evidence falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule led law enforcement to other evidence, which they would not otherwise have located, then the exclusionary rule applies to the related evidence found subsequent to the excluded evidence as well. Such subsequent evidence has taken on the name of “fruit of the poisonous tree” (Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 1920). The Exclusionary Rule is a court-created remedy and deterrent, not an independent constitutional right. Courts will not apply the rule to exclude illegally gathered evidence where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits.