Criminal Court Case Briefs: Payton Vs. New York

996 Words4 Pages
Case Briefs Case Briefs Dytavis Brown Florida Memorial University Author Note This paper was on prepared March 27, 2013 for Criminal Courts and Procedures taught by Dr. Britt Payton vs. New York: The police entered the homes of Theodore Payton and Obie Riddick without a warrant and subsequently confiscated evidence found on the premises. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution forbid warrantless entries for searches of homes unless exigent circumstances are present, even when there is probable cause. The issue here is whether there was an illegal search and seizure when a warrant…show more content…
Garner: In this event, Officers shot an unarmed suspected felon. The victim’s family alleged that his constitutional rights were violated by the officers. According to the rule of law, if an officer has probable cause to believe a suspect poses a threat of serious bodily harm to fellow officers or others, it is not “constitutionally” unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. The issue here is whether law enforcement officials can use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspected felon who is unarmed under the fourth amendment. Wilson vs. Arkansas: In this event, police officers entered the Petitioner’s home to conduct a search and arrest the Petitioner, the police failed to first knock and makes their presence announced. According to the rule of law, Police Officers must knock and announce their presence before executing a warrant. Police do not have to do this only if doing so would endanger them or lead to evidence being destroyed. The issue surrounding this case is are police officers required to knock and announce their presence when executing a…show more content…
Dickerson: In this event, a police officer performed a frisk on a suspect and discovered a small amount of crack cocaine in his jacket. According to the rule of law, if a police officer lawfully frisks down a suspect’s outer clothing and feels an object whose identity is immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect’s privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer’s search for weapons. If the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be justified by the same everyday considerations that occur in the plain-view context. The issue surrounding this case is whether the Fourth Amendment permits the seizure of contraband detected through a police officer’s sense of touch during a protective frisk search. Pennsylvania vs. Mimms: In this event, two Philadelphia cops pulled over a car for an expired license plate. During the stop, the police asked for the driver to exit the vehicle. He then discovered a 38 caliber handgun in his waistband and the passenger carrying a 32 caliber. Both were arrested. The issue surrounding this case is whether the order to get out of the car issued after the driver was lawfully detained reasonable and permissible under the 4th

More about Criminal Court Case Briefs: Payton Vs. New York

Open Document