On appeal, Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the motion to suppress. Soon after, Hudson was convicted of drug possession. Hudson then filed an appeal which brought the case to the Supreme Court. Provision of the constitution involved in this case: This case involves the exclusionary rule which comes directly from the Fifth Amendment. It states that no object may be used in court as evidence if obtained illegally or without a proper search warrant.
MIDTERM 1 Running Head: MIDTERM Midterm Project Search and Seizure Linda Branstrom Kaplan University CJ 299: Associates Capstone in Criminal Justice Professor Terry Campbell April 22, 2012 MIDTERM 2 Abstract It is firmly ingrained in our system of law that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject to only a few specifically established exceptions. The courts have outlined a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement including but not limited to, consent searches, searches of vehicles and, inventory searches. One exception the court has expressly and repeatedly refused to recognize is a general
“For example, it makes little sense to require an officer to obtain a search warrant to seize contraband that is in plain view. Under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement, the appropriateness of every warrantless search is decided on a case-by-case basis, weighing the defendant's privacy interests against the reasonable needs of law enforcement under the circumstances” (G K. Hill, 2005). Another exception to warrant requirements as it pertains to the above article is that the video released shows there was a lack of physical harm as seen on George Zimmerman. This was important to the prosecution because Zimmerman claimed Trayvon Martin attacked him and his death was a result of self defense. In conclusion, authority’s base warrants on probable cause which are only necessary in a small percentage of cases.
Code, Art. 27, ß594B (1996) (repealed 2001). A warrantless arrest of an individual in a public place for a felony, or a misdemeanor committed in the officerís presence, is consistent with the Fourth Amendment if the arrest is supported by probable cause. United States v. Watson, 423 U. S. 411, 424 (1976); see Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U. S. 318, 354 (2001) stating that if an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the
(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.
However, prohibition against double jeopardy does not preclude the crime victim from bringing a civil suit against that same person to recover damages (Miller & Jentz, 2008, pg 137). The Lectric Law Library at lectlaw.com (1995-2012) states that “the double jeopardy clause protects against three distinct abuses: 1. a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, 2. a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and 3. multiple punishments for the same offense. In this case Armington is incorrect. Armington was tried and convicted of the crime of armed robbery and assault and battery. The civil tort suit is completely different and therefore does not fall under double jeopardy.
The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), requires district courts to order restitution in cases of mail fraud, among other federal crimes. The statute makes restitution available to victims of fraud to the extent that those victims would have been entitled to recover in a civil suit against the criminal. Based on the established statutes, Circuit Judge, Wood, found no reason to overturn the original district court’s ruling and affirmed the
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS JUVENILE BRANCH IN THE MATTER OF: CASE NO. JUDGE MAGISTRATE MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION Now comes the defendant, by and through counsel, and respectfully moves that this court suppress identification of the defendant as it was secured through an unnecessarily suggestive showup confrontation. The evidence will show that this identification procedure violated the defendant's due process rights. This motion is supported by the attached memorandum. Respectfully submitted, MEMORANDUM On ______________, 199_, police officers arranged for a (witness) (witnesses) (witness or witnesses) to view the defendant without any other suspects
In U.S. v. Ursery (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court held that forfeiture in addition to criminal punishment did not violate _________. In a search incident to a lawful arrest, officers may search the area within the arrestee's area of _________ control. In Bond v. U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court held that manipulating or squeezing a suspect's opaque. soft luggage was a Fourth Amendment
● The exclusionary rule is the main remedy that will be focused on throughout the remainder of this book. It requires that evidence obtained in violation of certain constitutional amendments (notably the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth) be excluded from the criminal trial. Exceptions to the exclusionary rule have been recognized in cases in which (1) the police acted in good faith but nonetheless violated the Constitution and (2) the prosecutor sought to impeach a witness at trial by pointing to contradictions in his or her out-of-court statements, even if such statements were obtained in an