The trial judge granted the motion quashed the information which means to nullify, void, or delcare invalid. Both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed. Reading further you learn that the reason the motion was granted was because the police detained Summers OUTSIDE of his home while searching the premises. Fourth Amedment right states that the person being detained has the right to be present while the search is being done for reasons such as to make sure that evidence isn't being planted and the scene isn't being staged. He was escorted off the premises while the search was done, and he as well was searched off the premises.
Criminal statutes are very carefully drafted because the potential penalties are so severe.” (Hames, J. B., & Ekern, Y. 2010, p. 368). When Bobby walked into a public work facility with a gun with the intent to harm another person (his supervisor), then he did violate the assault statute because it is considered a crime against a person such as stated above. The supervisor did not do harm to Bobby, it sounded as if the supervisor was in fear and had his
After that, Officer Jones get into his vehicle and remove a couple of items. Joe is later released from custody and told that Officer Jones was well within his official duties to pull Joe over for the sobriety checkpoint and to arrest him when he appeared to be acting unruly. Joe’s items are not returned. Laws: 1.) The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution: a.
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.
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.
Safety Article #2-504(3)). First, yes pointing a shotgun at a group of people in a way of causing harm is a crime a violent crime. Hence as the law stated they collected his DNA. Perplexing, as one may conceive it but once they say they did it that is it and open for more.
Jose Trejo CJ – 241 June 27, 2010 Terry vs. State of Ohio (1968) The Supreme Court case of Terry vs. The State of Ohio focuses on the “stop and frisk” technique exercised by police officers, as well as the violation of the 4th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. On October 31, 1963, Police Detective Martin McFadden was patrolling an area of downtown Cleveland. Officer McFadden noticed two men standing on the corner of Huron Rd. and Euclid Ave. which invoked a suspicious sensation.
What caught the detective’s eye was that the two men appeared to be walking in front of a store and each would stop and look into the window. The men then would meet back up and appear to be having a conversation about what they had observed. This went on for about ten minutes and then the two joined a third man who was later identified as a gentleman with the last name Katz. This suspicious behavior led this seasoned detective to believe the three were probably casing the store and planned to rob it. Based on his experience and knowledge the detective felt he had enough reasonable suspicion to confront the men and determine what their business was in the area.
They repeated this ritual five or six times. A third man approached and engaged the two men in a brief conversation. Officer became thoroughly suspicious and believed the two men were casing a job, a stick up and that the men might have a gun. Officer approached the three men, identified himself as a police officer and asked the men for their
In Davis v. United States; an office pulled over a vehicle, the officer arrested the defended Willie Davis, who was the passenger in the car, gave the officer a false name. The officer arrested Davis because he found out that Davis had lie about his name; so the officer arrested Davis for giving false information to a police officers. After the officer handcuffed Davis and securing the scene, the officer searched the vehicle and found that Davis had a revolver. He was charged and convicted for possession of an illegal weapon. This case had used direct evidence.