This requires that the defendant knowingly and intentionally posses the controlled substance, and that the defendant intend to distribute it. (MBAH 22) HOLDING: No REASONING: These facts alone are not enough to establish constructive possession. These were the only facts relevant to Clive’s case, and thus the evidence presented at trial, without anything more, is not sufficient to warrant his conviction. There was other evidence pertaining to Gary, however, which was sufficient to establish constructive possession. Gary had marijuana paraphernalia in what was presumably his bedroom.
The criminal system is directed by the adversarial system. “The prosecutor gathers and presents evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt, and the defendant may respond by rebutting the state’s evidence and by gathering evidence of his own to prove his innocence (“The Future of Adversarial Systems,” 2010, p.285). One of the most significant principles underlying the adversarial system is that the accused must always be considered innocent until proven
The Plain View Doctrine explains that an officer has the right to evidence as long as it is out in the open and has the right to access the object. (Roberson, Wallace, & Stuckey, 2013, p. 53). Will the marijuana baggie be admissible evidence? Officer Smith reached in the vehicle to get the driver’s purse and retrieve identification within it for medical attention, she then notices the bag of marijuana. This also refers to the Plain View Doctrine.
Case Study 1: Officer Smith In the case of Officer Smith’s stop, I believe that Officer Smith acted lawfully throughout the entire scenario and that all evidence should be admissible in court. Officer Smith stopped a vehicle in regard to what he thought was a broken taillight, which makes the stop in itself viable. While approaching the stopped vehicle, he noticed a resemblance between it and a vehicle possibly used in the murder of a fellow Officer (which would have also been another viable reason for the stop had he noticed this before hand). Since he noticed this resemblance, the Officer was warranted in asking the driver to step out of the vehicle for a stop and frisk. A stop and frisk occurs when an officer has reason to believe
axia college | Plain View/Open Fields | Week 6 Assignment ADJ 275 | | | 6/26/2011 | | Plain View /Open Fields Case Study The Plain View Doctrine is applied when a police officer comes upon a contraband which is in “plain view”, meaning not concealed and able to be viewed by anyone in the vicinity without having to open containers, or move objects, and in any area where the presence of the police officer is legal. Under these circumstances, the officer can legally seize the contraband immediately with no need for a warrant and arrest its owner for illegally possessing the contraband. There is one condition which needs to be ascertained: before seizing the object, the police officer has to establish probable cause that
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.
Officer Smith had a duty to obtain and being an officer was killed and the case was major and open for suspects, Smith made some choices and acted upon her reaction of serving and protecting. As Officer Smith spotted a vehicle with a taillight out and covered over with colored tape that gave Smith reason to pull the car over. Another reason that I believe that Officer Smith had more than sufficient suspicion to pull the Vehicle over is because it is strictly illegal to drive with only
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
Tilese Brace Pontier CJ 230-02 March 24, 2012 Bert was sitting in a car with Pratt when Jack approached the car, pointed a gun at Bert and fired, mistakenly killing Pratt. Jack attempted to fire again at Bert, but the gun jammed and would not fire. Jack jumped into his car, put the gun in the glove compartment, and sped off. Jack’s attorney moved to dismiss the charge of the attempted murder of Bert on the ground that Jack could not have killed Bert due to the malfunctioning gun. The court granted the motion.
( Economist) “Pressure for a change in the law came after an official inquiry into the murder in 1993 of Stephen Lawrence, a black London schoolboy, found that the principle of double jeopardy would cause “grave injustice to victims and the community” (Economist). The fear that the new rules would be abused and taken advantage of have been tightly defined (Economist). Only the serious crimes can be reviewed—such as murder, rape, and armed robbery (Economist). “Any new investigations must be sent through the Director of Public Prosecution.