Investigation: A person can have reasonable privacy even in a public place. In this case, the person utilizing the phone booth would expect reasonable privacy because they would not think that their conversation would be recorded regardless of the conversations that took place. Under the Fourth Amendment, the taping of the phone conversations constitutes the search even though the search was achieved without a warrant. Conclusion: The evidence such as the tapes were inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the conviction was overturned.
It states that no object may be used in court as evidence if obtained illegally or without a proper search warrant. Legal questions to be addressed by the court: Whether the exclusionary rule is appropriate for violation of the knock-and-announce requirement? The decision of the court: With a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that the exclusionary rule is not appropriate for violations of the knock and announce rule. The Court noted that a knock-notice violation is rarely the “but-for” cause of obtaining inculpatory evidence. Consequently, when the police violate knock-notice rules by not announcing their presence or waiting sufficient time before forcing their way in),
There was not any evidence that the suspect even knew he was being followed. Decision: King entered a conditional guilty plea with his right to appeal to get the evidence suppressed based on it being an illegal search. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction stating
Courts will not apply the rule to exclude illegally gathered evidence where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits. Thus, the rule is not triggered when courthouse errors lead police officers to mistakenly believe that they have a valid search warrant, because excluding the evidence would not deter police officers from violating the law in the future (Arizona v. Evans, 1996). In this case, no warrant was obtained and, given the improper consent to search, the motion to exclude the physical evidence filed by William Ellis’s attorney would in all likelihood be granted. In sum, the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of a “murder scene” exception to the warrant requirement on three separate occasions spread out over a twenty year period. In each instance, the Court has emphatically rejected the notion that such an exception exists.
Sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B).” Stewart filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence on January 7, 2008. The federal court denied his motion on February 14, 2008. The trial court ruled that the suitcase was abandoned, defendant did not express possession after learning its location, and since defendant abandoned the suitcase, he did not have an expectation of privacy in the suitcase or its contents. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea on March 6, 2008. Defendant appealed his suppression hearing under his right to appeal.
Since Mapp and other significant decisions, innocent people have been subjected to fewer unconstitutional searches, not necessarily because the police fear the exclusion of evidence but because of the potential for civil liability, citizen complaints, and the like. The rules of law decided in Mapp v. Ohio relate to the relevant facts in the fact pattern based on the Fourth Amendment violation. Det. Quickdraw is a representative for the government, but he failed to uphold the law by not following the correct criminal procedure for search and seizure. In conclusion, if I were the judge ruling in this case, I could apply the exclusionary rule and any evidence that was obtained during the unlawful search would not be admissible.
Portfolio Project #3 No suppression for ‘no knock’ search Hudson was upset because he felt the entry of his home was unlawful and a violation of the knock-and-announce rule. Hudson argued that, police will now feel that they can skip past the knock-and-announce rule with no exclusionary rule sanction. Hudson brought forth that there were a few published decisions to date that announced big damage awards for numerous knock-and-announce violations. Hudson felt there wasn’t a difference in his case. Antonin Scalia noted that the “knock-and-announce” rule is constitutionally mandated.
The jury said that there was no evidence of previous crimes such as this one, so the landlord couldn’t predict this criminal act, because it never happened before, so he had no duty to provide any security in the building area and according to this the case was closed and the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for the entry of judgment for the defendant. That’s what the judge ordered. My opinion: I think that the judge did the right decision, because the owner of the building had no special relationship with the plaintiff, and he doesn’t have a duty to provide a security, but in my opinion that after this case there should be a law that provides security in the buildings for the safety of the persons that live in them. Reference:
The order was defied when you did not leave after Dean Sykes’ specific instructions. In summary, based on the facts discussed above, I believe that a court would almost certainly conclude that there is sufficient evidence to find that a lawful order not to remain existed and that there was defiance of such order, making out a Criminal Trespass in the third degree. From here on, I would recommend avoiding any social networking posts that discuss this matter. In this way, there will be nothing relevant posted that could have a negative effect on your case. Our office will be in touch with you
Dontae caine Lgs 3:30-4:45 4/6/2013 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISSON GROUNDS THAT THE STOLEN VALOR ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL To: Law partner to the current state of the law From: Dontae Reshard Caine Re: Stolen Valor Act as Unconstitutional Issue: Does the First Amendment protects false statements of fact – made without any apparent intent to defraud or gain anything? If so, what level of protection do they deserve. Six Justices agreed that some protection was warranted, but disagreed as to the amount, and three Justices believe that the First Amendment does not protect such lies at all. Background: The defendant has been charged by criminal complaint with one count of violation of 18U.S.C. § 704, popularly known as the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.