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.
Due process promises people the right to a speedy trial. The equal opportunity clause promises that the law will not discriminate against any person because of his or her differences. This amendment protects people against state and federal laws. Due Process and Crime Control Models Due Process The Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, requires due process, which is a requirement that the justice system officials respect the rights of those who have been accused of a crime. The three requirements for police officers are: 1) search and seizure, 2) arrests, and 3) interrogation (Criminal Justice Today, p. 127-128).
At the same time under the police-created exigency doctrine, exigent circumstances do not justify a warrantless search if the circumstances were created by the police [ii]. Holdings: Issue 1: The police entered the apartment building under exigent circumstances believing that evidence was being destroyed. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision based on the fact that the exigent circumstances were created by the police themselves. Reasoning: Issue 1: The police were not in pursuit of the suspect when they initially entered the apartment building. There was not any evidence that the suspect even knew he was being followed.
They proceeded to arrest Mr. Peabody, the judge dismisses the case because the police did not follow the Fourth amendment to get a warrant before they search and seize the owner property. The proper way this should have been handle was to get a warrant first before doing a search and seizure was done. References Criminal Procedure, Law and Practice, Rolando V. DelCarmen, Eighth edition, 2010, Wadsworth Cengage Learning. The Law Dictionary, Wesley Gilmer, Jr., M.S.L.S., J. D. Smith edition 1986, Anderson Publishing
The second issue is whether Joe Dullard's Fourth amendment right was violated. The IV amendment is “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In order to sue regarding an alleged Fourth Amendment violation, the plaintiff must have a legitimate expectation of privacy at the searched location. This expectation must meet both the subjective and objective tests of reasonableness. The subjective test requires the plaintiff to genuinely expect privacy, and the
“For example, it makes little sense to require an officer to obtain a search warrant to seize contraband that is in plain view. Under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement, the appropriateness of every warrantless search is decided on a case-by-case basis, weighing the defendant's privacy interests against the reasonable needs of law enforcement under the circumstances” (G K. Hill, 2005). Another exception to warrant requirements as it pertains to the above article is that the video released shows there was a lack of physical harm as seen on George Zimmerman. This was important to the prosecution because Zimmerman claimed Trayvon Martin attacked him and his death was a result of self defense. In conclusion, authority’s base warrants on probable cause which are only necessary in a small percentage of cases.
In this case, I believe the government took it too far because there was no warrant allowing officers to scan DLK’s home, there was no danger of losing evidence, and DLK’s fourth amendment rights were violated. First of all, using the thermal scanner in this case is considered a legal search and the officers that used it were not given a warrant. On a warrant, there are three major parts; who is being searched, where they are searching, and what is being searched for. Since officers knew who and what exactly they were searching for at DLK’s home, a warrant should have been provided. Obviously, heat radiation cannot be seen without some type of tool.
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution involving the clause of double jeopardy states that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…” This statement gives no right to the government to prosecute or punish a criminal for the same offense. Going through trial in a case is not only financially straining for both the court and the individual but also emotionally. There are three conditions necessary for a defendant to have protection under double jeopardy against a second prosecution. The earlier prosecution must progress to the point of jeopardy attachment. Second, a prosecution must then involve the same offense.
The Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule to prevent police misconduct. When a police officer is in violation of an individual’s fourth amendment right which is the right to be free from illegal search and seizure, the evidence found during that illegal act is kept out of federal court. This would have been helpful during the OJ Simpson trial. The exclusionary rule not only has three elements to it but it has a purpose for it too. With this are the three elements which are as follows.
Search and Seizure Paper According to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall be issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” as a country we take our liberties seriously. Our founding fathers believed a search, seizure, arrest, and reasonableness were the basic foundation to a law abiding country. Today, these elements continue to impact our criminal justice system. We will take a closer look into these to define there necessity in our