Two AID investigators soon arrived and DiLacqua told them the story he had prepared, with Brady and the two officers standing by. (7) DiLacqua's testimony is another false report. After trying to retrieve some items Brady had forgotten at the bar (including his service revolver), DiLacqua ordered Yatcilla to drive Brady home--something, one hopes, the Philadelphia police would do for any driver whose car was disabled in an
(18) The powers of the police to stop and search a person on the street are stated under S1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which states that an officer can stop and search someone and their vehicle in a public place if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are carrying a prohibited article such as a knife or drugs. A public place has a wide definition as it can be a street or a car park. Reasonable suspicion has been defined by Code of Practice A which states that the police officer has to have facts, information and intelligence. It also states that reasonable suspicion isn't based on personal factors such as hair colour, a person's age or race. In the case of Samuels (1999), courts held that Samuels' conduct of walking slowly, looking into houses and looking at the officers, was not grounds for 'reasonable suspicion'.
Actually, the fourth amendment would actually keep you from doing so because it states that “every citizen right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property –whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses”. Based on your observation of the marijuana plants, do you need a search warrant to enter and search the house and the resident? If yes, what is the basis for this legal requirement? If no, what is the justification for this exception to the search warrant requirement? Yes, from my observation of the marijuana plants you would need a search warrant to enter and search the house and the resident, but in saying that you would need probable cause, which refers to the requirement in criminal law that police have adequate reason to arrest someone, conduct a search or seize property relating to an alleged crime to enter the house, so in this case the citizens are breaking the law due to growing illegal drugs.
Able thereafter returned to meet his friends. The next day, Able noticed that Dick’s watch was a fake. In fact, the watch was a “Polex,” not a “Rolex,” but Able scratched the “P” to look like an “R.” He went to a pawnshop and told the dealer that he had this “Rolex” to sell. The dealer agreed and gave a check to Able for $300. After leaving the store, Able changed the $300 to $3000 with his pen and cashed it at a local
1. Stop and Frisk on the Streets: Police officers have the authority to make a stop and searches of individuals in the streets. In the Terry v. Ohio (1968) the Court upheld the stop and frisk procedure when a police officer believed the person might be suspicious. The Court requires specific facts to exist in each situation in order for a stop and frisk to be permissible. A police officer is entitled for the protection of themselves and others in area to conduct a careful limited search of outer clothing.
If an officer is in his patrol car attempting to pull someone over after witnessing a drug deal, the suspect flees and a foot chase pursues. The suspect is on his/her way into the house and yells out “COPS, FLUSH IT”, the officer has a right to enter that house, and perform a search for drugs. When there is a chance that evidence will be destroyed, a warrant is not needed. This also holds true if an officer is doing a routine patrol of a neighborhood, and hears some screaming coming from the inside of a house. The officer has a right to enter that residence to make sure that everyone in the house is ok.
A search of a defendant’s car produced drugs in a paper bag, and a leather pouch of cash. The paper bag was deemed admissible in court while the leather pouch was thrown out. There was a “greater expectation of privacy” with the pouch. U.S. v Ross (1982) Search incident to lawful arrest is when a person is arrested the police may search the person and any area within that person’s reach. There is no warrant required for this but the officer must have probable cause for the arrest.
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.
In the case of Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) it was held that an officer can search any person and all area that the person of persons have under their control of reach. Officer Smith had no way of identifying the suspect because she was unconscious. What was found in her possession was marijuana. It is admissible evidence because it was a lawful search and
Police Powers Stop and question It’s one of the basic powers that police have. They can stop you at any time and ask you what you are doing here and why you are in this area or where you are going to. However you don’t have to answer any of those questions. Stop and search This is one of the most important powers of the police force and those include stopping persons and vehicles if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that you are carrying for example illegal drugs, a weapon or something that could be used in committing a crime. You can also be searched without ‘reasonable grounds’ if it has been approved by a senior officer and this can happen if you’re suspected of being in a specific location or area and if you’re carrying a weapon or have used one.