Procedural History: Katz had moved to have the evidence suppressed under the Fourth Amendment, which was denied by the trial court. Katz appealed the trial court’s decision to the court of appeals, which upheld the conviction and held that the evidence was admissible on the grounds that there was no physical entry into the phone booth by the agents. History: Charles Katz was convicted under a federal statute of transmitting wagering information by telephone across state lines. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.
No! Armington’s request to drop the civil lawsuit is fruitless, because the 5th Amendment to the Constitution; double jeopardy also does not apply if the later charge is civil rather than criminal in nature, which involves a different legal standard crimes must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas civil wrongs need only be proven by preponderance of evidence (Harper, 2007). Yes, the other rights inside protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer a question because the response could provide self-incriminating evidence of an illegal act punishable by fines, penalties or forfeiture. The Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses four distinct prohibitions: subsequent prosecution after acquittal, subsequent prosecution after conviction, subsequent prosecution after certain mistrials, and multiple punishments in the same indictment (Harper, 2007).
Ct. 1114 (2007) Issue: Are affidavits and certificates used for state evidence in a criminal case from state forensic analysts testimonial to require confrontation via live testimony under the Sixth Amendment and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)? Holding: Yes Reasoning: The defense claimed that under Crawford v. Washington, the lab reports were testimonial and required the defense to be able to confront the lab tech at trail. The state argued that the lab reports were not testimonial because
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.
(caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/). Four models of the Fourth Amendment provide protection: a probabilistic model, a private facts model, a positive law model, and a policy model (Stanford Law Review, p. 503). Exceptions of the right of privacy, is not as stringent in a person’s vehicle. If one’s behavior is suspicious, an officer may impound the vehicle or search its contents without a warrant. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution According to Tom Head’s Civil Liberties, and the Fifth Amendment, a person cannot be held for questions in a capital crime unless an indictment has been issued by a Grand Jury.
Ilari Pass JPS 200 Fetrow November 15, 2012 UNITED STATES v. WADE, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Billy Joe Wade was indicted and convicted of armed robbery of a bank in Eustace, Texas after two employees from the bank identified him in a lineup. The defenses moved for acquittal, arguing that the lineup was a violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The trial court denied the motion. The Fifth Circuit reversed Wade’s conviction, holding that the lineup in the absence of counsel was a violation of the Sixth Amendment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Terry vs Ohio In Terry v. Ohio (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution permits a law enforcement officer to stop, detain, and frisk persons who are suspected of criminal activity without first obtaining their consent, even though the officer may lack a warrant to conduct a search or Probable Cause to make an arrest. Now known as a Terry stop, this type of police encounter is constitutionally permissible only when an officer can articulate a particularized, objective, and reasonable basis for believing that criminal activity may be a foot or that a given suspect may be armed and dangerous. Terry vs. Ohio is a landmark case that was brought to the Supreme Court. It started on October 31st, 1963, in Cleveland, Ohio, when a police officer named Martin McFadden observed two men standing outside a store front window. He watched one of the men walk down the street pausing to look into the store window when he reached the end of the street the man turned around and proceeded to walk back, pausing at the same store front window.
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.
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
The definition of a warrantless arrest is “An arrest made without a warrant. At common law, an officer was justified in making an arrest without a warrant if the officer reasonably believed that the defendant had committed a misdemeanor in his or her presence or had committed any felony” (Barron’s, 2003). Once arrested there is no exact amount of time a person can be held (it is not usually more than 48 hours) depending on the case. During this time the officer, can finger print the subject and check for outstanding warrants. Once the officer or detective reads the arrestee his Miranda rights, he may be questioned.