Case Citation: Kentucky. v.King, 563 U.S. (2011) Parties: Kentucky, Petitioner Hollis King, Respondent Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers entered an apartment building. They were in search of a suspect who had sold cocaine to an undercover informant. After a chase, police lost the suspect. They came to an apartment building where they smelled marijuana coming from one of the doors.
Joseph Weekley, charged with involuntary manslaughter, said he didn't immediately realize that he had shot Aiyana Stanley-Jones during the 2010 house raid. He said he unintentionally pulled the trigger when the victim's grandmother knocked his submachine gun. Weekley said he believed the shot came from someone else in the house. He said he didn't even feel recoil in the weapon.
Probable Cause Article Summary In order to issue to a search warrant, a judge must sign the order and authorize and obtain the specifics along with the location. The search warrant is only good for the specified location, so if the warrant specifies the garage at a certain address, authorities cannot search the inside of the home as well. In an article published online regarding the Trayvon Martin case, Reverend Al Sharpton stated he was enforcing the arrest of George Zimmerman regarding the released videos that gave probable cause to arrest him “for obstruction of justice and for filing a false police report if in fact he told police he sustained a broken nose and other injuries” (EurPublisher, 2012). Warrant requirement exceptions can be anything from roadside sobriety checkpoints, which have been court approved but must be done in a fair and organized manner. “For example, it makes little sense to require an officer to obtain a search warrant to seize contraband that is in plain view.
Yes, from my observation of the marijuana plants you would need a search warrant to enter and search the house and the resident, but in saying that you would need probable cause, which refers to the requirement in criminal law that police have adequate reason to arrest someone, conduct a search or seize property relating to an alleged crime to enter the house, so in this case the citizens are breaking the law due to growing illegal drugs. If you enter the residence and seize additional evidence inside and that search and seizure is later deemed illegal, would the additional evidence be admissible in court? Why or why not? In my opinion any additional evidence inside the premises would not be admissible in court, this is because as I stated above that any evidence that was collected at the premises and either the search warrant was not issued or was deemed to be
Hudson was charged under Michigan law with unlawful drug and firearm possession. When police arrived to execute the warrant, they announced their presence, but waited only a short time perhaps “three to five seconds” before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering Hudson’s home. At trial Hudson argued that police violated the knock and announce requirement, therefore all the evidence stemming from the search warrant should be inadmissible. The Trial Judge granted the motion to suppress the evidence. On appeal, Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the motion to suppress.
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.
Hypothetical Fact Pattern #1: In this scenario, we see that Rosa, who works at a private information technology company called Acme Systems, is fired from her job. Her termination was due to the marijuana found in her purse by Bob, an Acme security guard who wanted to detect and prevent drug use in the workplace. The issue in question is that if Rosa’s 4th Amendment rights had been violated. The 4th Amendment applies only to governmental agents and not to public or private companies. The search of Rosa’s purse was not performed by a governmental agent; rather, it was performed by a private security guard, working for her employer, Acme Systems.
Not only was he angry, and physical, but when the officers tried to cuff him Mr. Dents ran off screaming, and talking about aliens and that he was God. Considering our client was mentally unstable is the reality. As for the homicide offensive, it is inconclusive that Mr. Dents was the one who entered Uma Opee’s residence since there was no evidence of force entry or if our client had used a key to enter his girlfriend’s residence. The results of the toxicology reports showed that our client, Mr. Dents, was not under the influence of any drug. It is therefore, justified that Mr. Dents is mentally unstable and should receive psychiatric care rather than go to prison (Ciolino, 2000).
When he did not find the man at home, he sent his investigator to the Boynton Beach Police to ask about Wilder. They told Whittaker they had a lengthy rap sheet on him. He was far from the gentleman that Beth had once described. Hed had a history of sexual offenses. Beth’s parents suddenly realized that on the very night that Beth had visited them for the last time, they had seen a television report about another missing woman one who looked very much like
Nina doesn’t get any information squeezed out of the kids. When getting questioned upstairs, Nina finds the keys for the cell on the table and she secretly steals them. Nina doesn't know if she should go back and get the kids, or take off on her own and let the kids die. She decides to go and get the kids. They all escape, escaping very smartly.