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.
Hudson was charged under Michigan law with unlawful drug and firearm possession. When police arrived to execute the warrant, they announced their presence, but waited only a short time perhaps “three to five seconds” before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering Hudson’s home. At trial Hudson argued that police violated the knock and announce requirement, therefore all the evidence stemming from the search warrant should be inadmissible. The Trial Judge granted the motion to suppress the evidence. On appeal, Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the motion to suppress.
1975). Mr. Sullivan will probably be able to satisfy the last two elements as determined by another associate of the firm. The only issue in question that Mr. Sullivan will have to satisfy is whether Lonestar willfully detained him. The court will probably find that Mr. Sullivan was willfully detained by his employer, Lonestar bank, because he was brought to a glass room where the door was guarded by two men who threatened him not to leave the room and watched him as he was only allowed to go to the
When Hardwick had failed to show up for the citation hearing , Torick issued a warrant for Hardwick’s arrest. Torick proceeded to serve the arrest but Hardwick was not home. Once Hardwick came home and had realized that Torick had been at his house, he immediately went to pay the citation off, but once he arrived , the clerk had said that the warrant had to be processed for 48 hours before anything could actually happen. Weeks later once the warrant was surely processed by Torick, he intended to go arrest Hardwick at his home. Upon entering his house, he notices a “friend” of Hardwick’s sleeping off a hangover on the couch.
Under the Fourth Amendment, does the defendant have a right to privacy when he abandoned his suitcase in an airport, and did not claim it when he learned it had been turned in to authorities? STATEMENT OF THE CASE Arnold J. Stewart, defendant, sat before a federal grand jury in Utah. He was indicted on November 21, 2007. He was charged with “possession with intent to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B).” Stewart filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence on January 7, 2008.
The officer then spun Terry around while patting him down and found a weapon. Terry tried to get the weapon dropped due to illegal search and seizure but was denied due to the fact that an officer is justified in conducting a brief search of a person whom is found to be potentially dangerous. Before an officer can interrogate a person according to the sixth amendment, they must be told the right to a counsel. This comes about after the Gideon v Wainwright case in 1961. A burglary had occurred at a pool lounge.
State of Wisconsin. In this case the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 2, that officials at Madison High School in Milwaukee had acted legally in 1990 when they searched lockers for guns after the principal had heard rumors that a shootout was planned at the school. In an opinion by Justice Donald Steinmetz, four
Gates found the front door to his home jammed shut and with the help of his driver to force it open. A local witness reported their activity to the police as a potential burglary in progress. That Crowley had explained. Gates came to the door and said “why because I’m black man in America?” Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct, by Police St. James Crowley. On July 21, 2009, charges against Gates were dropped.
Therefore, I would like to introduce the Miranda right protection from officers and yourself once you’re being arrested. “On June 13, 1966, the outcome of Miranda v. Arizona provided that suspects must be informed of their specific legal rights when they are placed under arrest. This decision was based on a case in which a defendant, Ernesto Miranda, was accused of robbery, kidnapping, and rape. During police interrogation, he confessed to the crimes. The conviction was overturned due to allegedly intimidating police interrogation methods.
The case that I will be writing a brief on is the case DICKERSON v. UNITED STATES, 530 U.S. 428 (2000). In this case, Charles Dickerson, the petitioner, confessed to committing a crime during his questioning by law enforcement. The petitioner motioned to the court that his confession was obtained by his law enforcement officer before being read his Miranda rights. Subsequently, “[t]he District Court granted Dickerson’s motion and suppressed the statement as evidence, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (the “Fourth Circuit”) allowed the statements into evidence.”(casebriefs) Ever since the case Miranda v. Arizona was heard in 1966, “Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture.” (Samaha, J.) Chief Justice William Rehnquist referred to the Miranda case during the ruling of the 2000 Dickerson v. United States.