Section 1 In a quick overview of the case Mapp v. Ohio which ended in a ground breaking Supreme Court decision police officers in Cleveland, Ohio were watching a women named Dolree Mapp. The reason for the surveillance because police felt she was a guilty of harboring a fugitive in addition she was also suspected to have illegal gambling material in her house. Under advisement from her lawyer Mapp refused to let police search her house without a warrant. After this contact police returned three hours later and when there was no answer at the door police force their way in, Mapp demanded to see a search warrant the police showed a piece of paper which Mapp snatched from police to discover that it was not a search warrant. Through the search of the house police found illegal pornographic material but nothing that they suspected her on, at which time police arrested Mapp for the illegal pornographic material.
Once at the station the gun was run through the computer and it was found that the gun was used in a murder. My partner wants to falsify his report so the charges will stick. The driver confesses when this information comes out and my partner charges him with murder. I try to convince my partner that none of this evidence and confession will be admissible in court because there was no probable cause at the time. There was no consent for the search, the gun wasn’t in plain view and we did not protect ourselves by reading the driver his Miranda rights before questioning him.
Scenario #2 Frank Felon a native of Akron Ohio was arrested by officers from the Cleveland Police Department for allegedly committing felonious assault on Vince Victim also of Akron during a tailgate party prior to the Barry Manilow concert at the “Q” Arena on June 29, 2011. According to
Law of Obligation AUL 403 HCS1 Fall, 2014 LAUREN WHITTAKER vs. DOMINIC J. SARACENO In this case the plaintiff Whittaker brought a suit against the defendant Saraceno, because he failed to provide the security in the building which resulted it that the plaintiff was assaulted and raped, the plaintiff said that the defendant has an obligation to provide the security in the building and the safety of persons who live in the building. On March 24, 1984, at 8 PM the plaintiff entered the building when the assailant which was never identified came up behind her, took her to the basement of the building to an adjoining area where he raped her. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant ( the owner of the building) because he didn’t provide the security of the persons that live in the building. A jury returned a verdict against the landlord. The trial judge denied the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
In the middle of the night, Freak decided that we had another quest to accomplish. He said that it was like a treasure hunt except he already knew where the treasure was. So, we went to the sewer because Freak said that that was where he saw Tony D.’s gang drop the purse while they were trying to escape from the police. Apparently, we were searching for a purse that was dropped down a grate that leads down to the sewers. So, we went to the sewer and found the purse.
Armington, while robbing a drugstore, shot and seriously injured Jennings, a drugstore clerk brought a civil tort suit against Armington for damages. Armington contended that he could not be tried again for the same crime, as that would constitute double jeopardy, which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Is Armington correct? Explain. No!
What can you do? What can you do? Scenario 1 is much like Terry vs Ohio. The officer is on patrol and notices two men behind a business that has been burglarized. The officer pats him down, finds an illegal gun, and arrests him.
You end up on the ground struggling with the guy to get the knife out of his hand when he ends up getting stabbed. The case goes to court because the robber decided to press charges. You go to court and describe what happened and say that you were trying to protect your car and belongings inside of it and had no intention of fighting with or stabbing the suspect and that you just wanted
On July 22, 1991, when two Milwaukee police officers picked up Tracy Edwards, a young African-American man who was wandering the streets with a handcuff dangling from his wrist, they decided to investigate the man's claims that Dahmer had drugged and restrained him.When they arrived at Dahmer's apartment, he calmly offered to get the keys for the handcuffs. Edwards then claimed that Dahmer had also threatened him with a knife. When the police went to talk to Dahmer about Edward claims they noticed pictures of dismembered bodies lying around, which included one of a head in the
California is an example of an arrest performed in the home of the suspect where officers searched the entire home against the refusal of the defendant and without a search warrant. Officers found incriminating evidence during their illegal search and during trial used this evidence to convict the defendant. The evidence was found in drawers in other rooms and the wife of the suspect was asked to remove the contents of certain drawers thus producing stolen items that the suspect had hidden. For this reason, the court ruled that the search of the home was unconstitutional and that it violated the defendants Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment