“But what he seeks to keep as private, even in an area accessible to the public may be constitutionally protected” ~ Justice Potter Stewert (Katz vs. United States). Now don’t get me wrong, because at no point am I saying that what DLK was doing was “right”. However, DLK obviously “expected to keep what he was doing as private”. Therefore, the law enforcement should have gotten a search warrant from a judge prior to searching DLK’s home. I believe many of you would argue that the law enforcement didn’t need to get a search warrant in order to search DLK’s house, because DLK could easily destroy the evidence.
No warrant was obtained for these searches. Ross’ attorneys made a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence found in the bag and the pouch on the grounds that the warrantless search of the car does not extend to searching closed containers found within. Ross was subsequently convicted of possession of heroin with intent to distribute. The heroin and currency found in the searches having been introduced in evidence after Ross’ pretrial motion to suppress the evidence had been denied. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, while the officers had probable cause to stop and search Ross’s car,
In this case, I believe the government took it too far because there was no warrant allowing officers to scan DLK’s home, there was no danger of losing evidence, and DLK’s fourth amendment rights were violated. First of all, using the thermal scanner in this case is considered a legal search and the officers that used it were not given a warrant. On a warrant, there are three major parts; who is being searched, where they are searching, and what is being searched for. Since officers knew who and what exactly they were searching for at DLK’s home, a warrant should have been provided. Obviously, heat radiation cannot be seen without some type of tool.
Police Report 1 Police Report University of Phoenix Police Report 2 Police Report The Fourth Amendment Right protects all Americans from the police officers or other law officials from searching their home, person or property with having a search warrant. Police Officers are able to search a person or their belonging when there is probable cause such as a person covered in bloody running away from an individual lying out on the sidewalk. The court case Minnesota v. Riff made information that was obtain by officer in an unlawful search to be inadmissible during any court proceedings. The effective communication was challenged in this court case because each and every one of the witnesses had a different testimony that place the
California vs. Greenwood On the case of California vs. Greenwood, the local police suspected Greenwood was dealing drugs from his home. The police did not have enough evidence to get a warrant so they ask the garbage men to get the garbage bags that Greenwood had left at the curb for pick up to give them to the police. They found evidence of drug use that at the time was used to get a warrant to search the house. The search was illegal substance, and Greenwood was arrested on felony charges. Then the trial said that the search of a person’s trash violated the Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution, the trial court dismissed the charges against Greenwood.
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),
The police learned of the offense against Willie Shard only upon arriving at the station. Willie Shard was called to come down to the police station, and upon walking into the building, immediately Willie Shard identified the two men, without counsel present, and before any formal charges had been made. History The petitioner and his companion did not have counsel present and believed they were not formally charged. They believed it was unfair that they never got a line up. A motion to suppress the identification was denied at trial, and the petitioner and his companion were convicted for the robbery.
They proceeded to arrest Mr. Peabody, the judge dismisses the case because the police did not follow the Fourth amendment to get a warrant before they search and seize the owner property. The proper way this should have been handle was to get a warrant first before doing a search and seizure was done. References Criminal Procedure, Law and Practice, Rolando V. DelCarmen, Eighth edition, 2010, Wadsworth Cengage Learning. The Law Dictionary, Wesley Gilmer, Jr., M.S.L.S., J. D. Smith edition 1986, Anderson Publishing
Criminals usually plan out and act upon the scenario in a time when they’re not being followed and during the scenario they are not available; Wiggims was nowhere to be heard of or seen, therefore he is a suspect. As the Chief you are authorized to be in control of society, protect it and follow the higher authorization person(s). The Mayor of Springfield, Quimby, told the Police to “take out Burns,” and clearly chief Wiggims is once against suspected because of his authority as a police offer. The little time before and after the shooting, Chief Wiggims told Jimbo Jones to stay away from the statue near the parking lot (where Mr.Burns was shot near the Simpsons car) because he was loitering and during that time it can be safely assumed that Wiggims had committed the crime, got rid of evidence (jimbo Jones) and may have had some cause to leave bloodstains on the Simpsons car. After all the person who was not at the shooting, and was responsible for the case being Wiggims would be a great idea due to the authority(Chief Wiggims), power(Quimby) and the gun that had made the sound when shot.
Police may seize property without a warrant if the evidence is in plain view (Justia.com, 2011). Police officers used to violate suspects’ constitutional rights by conducting illegal search and seizures that violates suspects’ rights. The exclusionary rule helps ensure law enforcement officers no longer violate suspects’ Fourth Amendment rights by obtaining evidence during illegal searches and seizures. The rule protects adults and juveniles. The exclusionary rule also deters unlawful police conduct because the evidence collected is inadmissible in a