Case Citation: United States v. Leon et al., 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Parties: Alberto Antonio Leon et al. / Respondents United States / Petitioner Facts: After receiving unproven information from a confidential informant, the Burbank police began an investigation by surveillance of the Respondents at their residence for drug use. A check of one of the individuals, Richardo Del Castillo, led officers to Respondent Alberto Leon who had prior arrests for drug charges. A search warrant was issued by a State Superior Judge to search the Respondent’s residence whereby a large quantity of drugs was found.
1 Fagin is using his house to sell drugs. A number of buyers come to his door at all hours of the day and night. His neighbour Twist has fitted a video camera to his garage pointing at Fagin’s front door, which allows Twist to see inside the house and to record all activities. He later hands the film to the police. Fagin is arrested and taken into police custody.
They did not address the issue of the smell of burnt marijuana but they left the home. He informed the on duty sergeant and he pointed out the fact that he can write a search warrant based on plain smell alone. He ran a criminal history background check on the home owner and found that he had been convicted once for possession of marijuana. He then drafted an affidavit of search warrant that the District Judge signed and
The second situation states: While passing Makoto’s house one night, Sarah sees Makoto outside with a laptop computer. Holding Makoto at gunpoint, Sarah forces him to give up the computer. Then Sarah runs away with it. In this situation I would think that this would fall under aggravated robbery. Robbery is defined as the taking of cash, personal property, or any other article of value from a person by means of force or fear (Miller & Jentz, 2008).
I opened the sally port overhead door for him to pull his Tahoe in, at the same time there was a Barry County Mental Health representative exiting the jail through the hall door. So at this point I had my hand on two buttons, the sally port garage door close button and the hallway door. When the representative knocked on the door, indicating that she wanted out, my initial instinct was to push the button with my middle finger. So I pushed the button that my middle finger was on, which happened to be the close button for the garage door. Right then I was watching the camera in the garage as the overhead door was lowering, and the Tahoe was in its path.
The police informed the individuals inside what they observed. The police then observed a shotgun in the pillows on the couch and found three more underneath the same couch. The police conducted a pat-down search of everyone in the house. The police found a large amount of suspected marijuana, suspected cocaine and $400 on Mr. Blake. Subsequently, Mr. Jonathan Blake was arrested for possession of a controlled substance, distribution of a controlled substance, and possession of an unregistered firearm.
8/30/11 Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952) Facts: On the morning of July 1, 1949, three deputy sheriffs of the county of Los Angeles received “some information that Rochin was selling narcotics.” With this information the three deputies went to the home of Rochin and found the outside door open. They entered and then forced open the door to Rochin’s room. Inside the room they found Rochin sitting on the side of the bed. The deputies saw two capsules on a night stand and asked Rochin, “Whose stuff is this?” Rochin then grabbed the capsules and put them in his mouth. A struggle ensued as the deputies attempted to extract the capsules from Rochin’s mouth.
Rochin v. California (1952) In the case of Rochin v. California authorities had some information that “Antonio Richard Rochin” was selling narcotics and they unlawfully entered his home. Upon entering, they discovered the individual was located upstairs in his bedroom. Because the door was shut they forced their way into his bedroom and found him sitting on the bed. Beside the bed was a nightstand and sitting on the nightstand was two capsules. When the officers questioned Rochin about the pills, he immediately put them in his mouth and swallowed them.
In this case Agent Brenneman knocked on Harrison’s door and told him the police had received an anonymous tip that there were bombs and drugs in his apartment. This was not true. He then asked Harrison if it was okay to search his apartment Brenneman then proceeded to tell Harrison that he was not there to bust him on a small bag of weed…. He had bigger fish to fry. After this Harrison verbally agreed to let the investigators search his apartment.
Criminal Law Paper Carolyn Waddell-Tillman 354 February 7, 2014 Professor William Heiman Criminal Law Paper Arrest Search and Investigation DNA Cheek Swab Maryland v. King, 569 U.S._ (June 3, 2003) The defendant was arrested in 2009 for menacing a group of people with a shotgun, the defendant was charged in state court with assault, where he was processed for detention custody at a central booking facility. Booking personnel used a cheek swab to take the DNA sample from him pursuant to the Maryland DNA Collection Act. His DNA was uploaded into the Maryland DNA database and matched a 2003 sample from an unsolved rape case. He was charged and convicted in the rape case (criminallawresources.com) What interested me about this