The court rejected the Government’s suggestion that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not apply where evidence is seized in reasonable good-faith reliance on a search warrant. Procedural History: In August 1981, acting on a tip from a confidential informant, officers of the Burbank Police Department began an extensive investigation by surveillance at Respondents’ residences involving drug-trafficking. Respondents Armando Sanchez and Patsy Stewart were identified to be selling large quantities of cocaine and methaqualone from their residence. A check of one of the individuals, Richardo Del Castillo, led officers to Respondent Alberto Leon who had prior arrests for drug charges and was heavily involved in the importation of drugs into this country. Based off of the police officers’ observations and activities at their homes, Officer Cyril Rombach, an experienced, narcotics investigator, prepared an affidavit for a warrant
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.
Facts: Three Cleveland police officers arrived at the petitioner’s house looking for a bombing suspect hiding out in her house. the suspect was not found, but police did find pornagraphic matierials that the previous tenant had left in a trunk. The first time the police showed up they asked to come in, but Miss Mapp refused to let them in without a warrant. About three hours later they came back with what they told her was a search warrant, but was not. 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.
Business Law I-LS311 Unit 3 Assignment Professor Jeffery Hazard Submitted by Sarah Del Moore March 20, 2012 The first situation where Sarah is passing Makoto’s house at night, sees Mokoto’s laptop computer and takes Makoto’s laptop computer off of his porch is known as larceny. This property crime is larceny because it consists of the taking and carrying away of another person’s property with intent to permanently deprive that person off possession. It also involves a trespass onto personal property. (Miller & Jentz) The second situation where Sarah passes by Makoto’s house one night where she sees the laptop, holds Makoto at gunpoint, forces him to give up the computer and then runs away with it would be considered robbery with a deadly weapon. It would be considered robbery because Sarah takes the laptop computer by using force and/or fear.
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.
Explain how investigators used reference samples to determine that the victims had been held at the residence located at 881 Lope De Vega. 3. Explain how investigators used reference samples to determine that the victim’s bodies had been buried and later moved to the site where they were discovered. Also explain how they used such evidence to determine the original burial place. Some of the main challenges the investigators were facing in the case involving U.S. drug agent Enrique Camarena in Guadalajara were the crime scene was not secured and was contaminated by police and people who just wanted to look.
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.
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.
Pritchard Hall Thefts: Lacey Larceny or Something Worse Once again Pritchard Hall is in the clutches of a criminal mastermind. Instead of high priced MP3s and laptop computers, the larcenist is after something much lacier. The Virginia Tech Police Department has received reports of underwear being taken from the laundry room in Pritchard. I know what you’re thinking. “What could be more suspenseful than stealing underwear?” “Surely, this must be the plot for Point Break II.” “How did they get past the laser trip wires?” I can only answer with: “almost anything;” “Dear God, do not give Keanu Reaves an excuse to act again;” and “I am guessing Catherine Zeta Jones dipped beneath them (whoa oh oh).” However, the V.T.P.D.
First, I chose to speak with my Chief of Police about the wrongdoing that has been in occurrence for quite some time. There's a key difference between upholding the law and wrongdoing committed against a person. In a similar situation which occurred in New York with a former NYPD narcotics detective by the name of Stephen Anderson. The former NYPD narcotics detective testified that he regularly saw police plant drugs on innocent people as a way to meet arrest quotations. Mr. Anderson was testifying under cooperation with prosecutors after he