Additional questions the prosecutor should seek answers to are: how long had the police been watching the dealer? Did they have him under surveillance and saw him purchase or pick-up the drugs? Did they follow him to the girlfriend’s house and witness him entering the house with the drugs? Did they raid her house as a coincidental matter of timing? If so, the police could have stopped him on the street before entering the house; which in that case there would be no evidence linking the girlfriend to the cocaine.
These places include water bodies, wood areas and even plain grass fields. However the United States constitution protects cartilage. Existing circumstances that requires the police argent search to eliminate danger proceeds without following the due process. Motor vehicles are not residence personal effects. If an individual might to hurt the police officers or destroy evidence, then an arrest follows.
Through the search of the house police found illegal pornographic material but nothing that they suspected her on, at which time police arrested Mapp for the illegal pornographic material. Section 2 The facts of the case are simple: 1 Dolree Mapp in no way, shape, or form consented to a police search. 2 Police officers didn’t not have a search warrant for Dolree Mapp, her house, nor for her property.3 Police had no probable cause that to enter the residence. 4 Police abused their power by trying to misguide and mislead Mapp into believe they had a search warrant. Section 3 Dolree Mapp basis for her appeal on her conviction of the possession of obscene materials was on the fact that it was an illegal search.
The jury said that there was no evidence of previous crimes such as this one, so the landlord couldn’t predict this criminal act, because it never happened before, so he had no duty to provide any security in the building area and according to this the case was closed and the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for the entry of judgment for the defendant. That’s what the judge ordered. My opinion: I think that the judge did the right decision, because the owner of the building had no special relationship with the plaintiff, and he doesn’t have a duty to provide a security, but in my opinion that after this case there should be a law that provides security in the buildings for the safety of the persons that live in them. Reference:
Before the rule was in place, any evidence was admissible in a criminal trial if the judge found the evidence to be relevant. The manner in which the evidence had been seized was not an issue. This began to change in 1914, when the U.S. Supreme Court devised a way to enforce the Fourth Amendment. According to the Legal Dictionary online, the exclusionary rule is a law that prohibits any evidence that was illegally obtained from being admissible in any criminal case (Legal Dictionary, 2011). While this law does not have any jurisdiction in a civil or grand jury case, it does prevent police officers from taking action that would violate Americans’ fourth Amendment right and deter any misconduct on behalf of the police officer.
Happy led the officers to a storage room and then to a trap door that was concealed under a rug. Many pounds of marijuana and several ounces of cocaine were discovered under the building. After the officers secured the evidence and were loading up their vehicles, Happy ran over to the door of what appeared to be a private dwelling located within 10 feet of the convenience store and gave a signal indicating illegal drugs at that location. The supervisor knocked on the door and was greeted by an individual, Mr. Right, who turned and ran to the back of the residence.
So, we went to the sewer and found the purse. When we found it, we opened it up to see if there was an I.D. in it. Since there was an id in it, we took it to the nearest police station and turned it in. The police officers found the owner but it turned out that the owners were actually criminals that the police department had been searching for.
There are no rights in the Constitution that protect us from incriminating ourselves by giving voluntary statements prior to the beginning of a custodial interrogation. However, before the police begin their accusatory interrogation, or questioning John about the crime, they must Mirandize the accused to inform him of his rights.
On July 22, 1991, when two Milwaukee police officers picked up Tracy Edwards, a young African-American man who was wandering the streets with a handcuff dangling from his wrist, they decided to investigate the man's claims that Dahmer had drugged and restrained him.When they arrived at Dahmer's apartment, he calmly offered to get the keys for the handcuffs. Edwards then claimed that Dahmer had also threatened him with a knife. When the police went to talk to Dahmer about Edward claims they noticed pictures of dismembered bodies lying around, which included one of a head in the
This led the officers to search in Sam’s car. Sam was arrested on September 20, 2006 in his motor vehicle by members of the Toronto Police Service. In the course of the arrest, police officers seized drugs and two thousand dollars in Canadian currency that was located under the driver’s car mat. Sam was scheduled at youth court and was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, fraud, and production of marijuana in the Municipality at North York. He appealed the decision of the court and luckily to get a good defendant counsel the, case was dropped.