The police searched her residence but did not find the bombing suspect.However the police did find obscene materials in the house, and Miss Mapp was placed under arrest. Miss Mapp was found guilty and convicted for the illegal materials found in her residence. All evidence found at Miss Mapp’s residence was in violation of the fourth amendment (no unlawful search and seizures) because they did not have a real search warrant.The police, who possessed no warrant to search Mapp's property had acted unlawfully. Any incriminating evidence found during the search should, therefore, be thrown out of court and her conviction overturned. If the 4th Amendment did not limit the prerogatives of police on the local and State level, local law enforcement would have a mandate to search wherever, whenever, and whomever they pleased.
Dollree was arrested for the possession of lewd and lascivious books under the Ohio Revised Code 2905.34-.35 (The Cleveland Memory Project). However, they could not convict her due to her fourth amendment right which states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” (Bill of Rights Transcript Text). This case was important in defining the use of the “exclusionary rule”. When the Cleveland Police Department received an anonymous phone tip of the whereabouts of Virgil Ogletree, a suspect in the bombing, they were headed straight to the Mapp resident. Officers from the Cleveland Bureau of Special Investigation Sergeant Carl I. Deleau, Officer Thomas J. Dever, and Officer Micheal J. Haney surrounded Dollree’s home and requested entry.
Case Citation: United States v. Leon et al., 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Parties: Alberto Antonio Leon et al. / Respondents United States / Petitioner Facts: After receiving unproven information from a confidential informant, the Burbank police began an investigation by surveillance of the Respondents at their residence for drug use. A check of one of the individuals, Richardo Del Castillo, led officers to Respondent Alberto Leon who had prior arrests for drug charges. A search warrant was issued by a State Superior Judge to search the Respondent’s residence whereby a large quantity of drugs was found.
McKenzie Pennington Mrs. Vonnegut Evidence and Procedure U.S. Vs Harrison US Vs. Harrison In this case the defendant, Johnny James Harrison was being watched on surveillance by agent Brenneman because of suspicion of drugs and firearms. During his surveillance on the defendant the agent did not see any evidence of illegal activity so he decided to “knock and talk”. A knock and talk procedure is a tactic used by one or two police officers to confront a person about the allegations that they were accused of when there is no probable cause to get a search warrant. Sometimes a knock and talk will result in the police asking to search with verbal consent from the owner. In this case Agent Brenneman knocked on Harrison’s door and told him the police had received an anonymous tip that there were bombs and drugs in his apartment.
In the case of Michigan v. Summers 452 U.S. 692, the police obtained a search warrant to search the home of Summers as well as Summers hisself. Upon searching the premises, they found narcotics in the basement, afterwards searching Summers hisself and found 8.5 grams of heroin in his coat pocket. Summers was arrested and charged of possession due to the heroin found on Summers hisself. Summers moved to suppress the heroin charges as the product of an illegal search in violation of his Fourth Amendment. The trial judge granted the motion quashed the information which means to nullify, void, or delcare invalid.
I feel that this situation would be considered as larceny. Under the common law, the crime of larceny involves the unlawful taking and carrying away of someone else’s personal property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession (Miller & Jentz, 2008). Basically, larceny is stealing or theft that does not involve any kind of force or fear. Sarah took the computer in this situation to claim it as her own and did not inflict any force or fear into anyone. The second situation states: While passing Makoto’s house one night, Sarah sees Makoto outside with a laptop computer.
The defendant later on denied that any liquor was visible. The defendant was arrested, and the officer seized the alcohol in the car as well as the alcohol he found in the trunk after the arrest. The defendant challenged the constitutionality of his arrest on the grounds that the officer did not have probable cause, and thus the seizure of the alcohol was not agreeable to a valid stop. Legal Issue: Whether or not the requirements of the information on which an officer may act, such as a warrantless search has probable cause? Prosecution Argument: Brinegar already had a reputation on transporting illegal alcohol, and when was pulled over he admitted to having some alcohol on him.
2. I have a difficult time agreeing that these two girls took a “substantial step” towards the actual commission of the crime. By carrying the poison to the school, which was the only overt act that could be found, it does not comport with the Tennesse Code Section 39-12-101, which states in part: (a) A person commits criminal attempt who…. (3) Acts with the intent to complete a course of action or cause a result that would constitute the offense, under the circumstances surrounding the conduct as the person believe them to be, and the conduct constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of the offense. I would compare the poison in the girl’s purse with a
Gilbert W Johnson 03/21/2015 CRJU-2020 Columbus Technical College Furman v Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) Facts of the Case: Mr. Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him, he tried to flee and when spotted tripped and fell the gun that was on him at the time went off and killed a resident of the home. “Burglary the criminal offense of breaking and entering a building illegally for the purpose of committing a crime”. “Murder, to kill (a person) in a deliberate and unlawful way”. Furman was convicted of murder but he did not intend to kill the resident during the burglary, but he killed someone during the commission of a felony. Furman intent to burglarize someone home was illegal conduct.
Justice over Convictions! Convictions over Justice! Prosecution is “predicated upon an appeal to racism rather than reason, and concealment rather than disclosure.” “I was arrested for protecting my wife and myself when an intruder/robber burst into our bedroom late one night.” This is a case of self-defense pure and simple in which my wife and I were intruded upon, assaulted, attempted to be robbed, and put in a life threatening position, through no wrong doing(fault) of our own. In light of the verdict in the Martin vs. Zimmerman case, that allowed Zimmerman to claim self-defense even though he pursued and accosted Martin, it would appear that a person at home in their own private bedroom at night and being thrust into a life threatening