If you are riding in the car with an individual and the police pull you over is it okay for the police to arrest the passenger in the car even if he or she says that the contraband that he finds is not his? Another hypothetical question is this, Assume that police discover a crime that has been committed by one person, they go to seven people with questions about the crime, they all deny culpability, and the police already know that one of the guys is guilty. Can all six of these guys be arrested for this one crime even though police don’t really know which person is guilty? There are simple and easy answers to all of these questions : it depends if the police have “probable cause” to think that a person should be arrested and is guilty of a particular crime. That was the complicated part in the Pringle case that was brought out by the Supreme Court.
They stopped the car and ordered the driver out. After noticing a bullet on the front seat, officers searched the glove compartment and found a pistol, at which point they arrested the driver, identified as Albert Ross. One of the officers opened the car’s trunk, found a closed brown paper bag, and after opening the bag, discovered glassine bags containing white powder, which were later determined to be heroin. During a later search at the police headquarters they also found a zippered red leather pouch in the trunk, which they opened and found $3,200.00 in cash. No warrant was obtained for these searches.
If the foreign national chooses to exercise that right, the peace officer shall notify the pertinent official in his or her agency or department of the arrest or detention and that the foreign national wants his or her consulate notified. All the evidence was used during the trial to convict Oliver of these charges. He was convicted for posession of a firearm in public and silencer and convicted for
The defendant was acting nervous with an evasive behavior and he was in a high crime area. These factors lead to the reasonable suspicion necessary for a Terry stop under the Fourth Amendment. Facts: The defendant William Wardlow was holding a opaque bag while visiting an area known for heavy narcotic trafficking, upon seeing the two officers on routine patrol he takes off and runs from the officers, the officers catch up with him and conducts a pat-down weapons search, they find a .38 caliber handgun on his person. Trial court denied Mr. Wardlows’ motion to suppress, but the appellate court reversed the decision. Illinois Supreme Court upheld the appellate courts results stating that the combination of running and the fact that the defendant was in a high drug area did not reach the status of reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a Terry stop.
The officer then spun Terry around while patting him down and found a weapon. Terry tried to get the weapon dropped due to illegal search and seizure but was denied due to the fact that an officer is justified in conducting a brief search of a person whom is found to be potentially dangerous. Before an officer can interrogate a person according to the sixth amendment, they must be told the right to a counsel. This comes about after the Gideon v Wainwright case in 1961. A burglary had occurred at a pool lounge.
FACTS: On August 7, 1999 a routine traffic stop was conducted with three occupants. The Respondent, Pringle, was the front-seat passenger in a car that was stopped for speeding. Upon approach of the vehicle the arresting officer found $763 in the glove compartment while the owner,Donte Partlow was retrieving his credentials from glove compartment. The arresting officer conducted a vehicle search which discovered cocaine in the back-seat armrest. The officer arrested all three occupants of the car and Pringle was convicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine after he gave an oral and signed a written confession.
The officer pats him down, finds an illegal gun, and arrests him. The stop was a legal stop. The Fourth Amendment applies to stop and frisk procedures like: (a) whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. (b) A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a "search" under that Amendment. (Terry vs Ohio) Also, when an officer is concerned about his safety and other individual’s safety, he
Tennessee vs. Garner The Tennessee vs. Garner case involved the shooting of an unarmed suspect to a burglary. The officer knew the suspect was unarmed and shot and killed him while he was trying to escape. I will discuss whether or not there would be a time to use deadly force against an unarmed suspect. “If an officer believes that the suspect poses a threat to society than it is not unreasonable to use deadly force to prevent escape.” (Tennessee vs. Garner, 2012 Copyright). What actually happened the night that the unarmed young man was shot and killed?
Jeffrey believes that the government secured his conviction unlawfully by suppressing evidence, that there was no evidence that supported Jeffrey’s account. The government countered by saying that the suppressed evidence was crucial to his ability to defend that non-factual members were at the crime scene and that many of those items were found under finger nail tips and other critical locations would logically be viewed as signatures left by the murders. The FBI lab releases a list of examined evidence, the debris from the club was wool black fibers not pajama top wool fibers. Murtagh proclaims he did not know about the fibers and signs an affidavit swearing so. In 1986 Beasley gives a statement of facts to Ted L. Gunderson.
Summary of the Case Eric Michael Clark was charged with murdering an Arizona police officer. Clark was a paranoid schizophrenic and was not able to submit evidence during his trial that would exonerate him of the ability to commit the crime charged. Under Arizona law, Clark was permitted to present evidence of his psychiatric condition to support an insanity defense. Arizona law states that an insanity defense must establish by clear and convincing evidence that as a result of mental illness at the time of the crime he “did not know the criminal act was wrong.” ("Clark v. arizona," 2006) The judge in Clark’s case refused to consider psychiatric evidence to reject his mens rea, due to nonsupport of Arizona case law. Clark’s conviction was also sustained by The Arizona Court of Appeals.