Errors in the Investigation of JonBenet Ramsey’s Death In the early morning hours of December 26, 1996 JonBenet Patricia Ramsey was murdered at her family’s home in Boulder, Colorado. At approximately 5:52am, her mother, Patsy, calls police declaring that her daughter had been kidnapped and that she had found a ransom note on the back staircase in the kitchen of the home. Police officers arrived at the home at 6:00am and conduct a search of the premises. JonBenet is not found at this time. The ransom note found by Patsy Ramsey is read and indicates that JonBenet’s father, John, and mother Patsy must pay $118,000 by 10 am the next morning to ensure JonBenet’s safe return.
There was not any evidence that the suspect even knew he was being followed. Decision: King entered a conditional guilty plea with his right to appeal to get the evidence suppressed based on it being an illegal search. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction stating
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),
In the Mapp v Ohio case it was believed that Mapp may be hiding a person suspected in a bombing. Police went to her door and demanded to be let in, she denied them entry. Eventually, after forcing their way into her residence they found pornographic material. They arrested and charged her with violating the Ohio state law that states that no person should be in possession of any kind of obscene materials. She was found guilty.
The disappearance of Denise Fox, age 57, was first noticed by her daughter who found the back sliding door broken and blood on the floor when she returned home. The body was found by Nassau County Police in the basement of Marshall’s home on Friday August 18 several hours after the disappearance was reported. Two carving knives and two trash containers were also found on the basement. Marshall was arrested the following morning at 10 am when he drove into the driveway. Upon a search of the car, Denise Fox’ severed head was found in his trunk.
She looks up human cloning. Then she looks for a picture of Dalton Van Dyne. From the interview, Bethany gets that he wants to ruin her life. Chapter 34 Bethany shows Joss what she found. Bridgie shows up at there house with a picture of Dalton Van Dyne.
Additional questions the prosecutor should seek answers to are: how long had the police been watching the dealer? Did they have him under surveillance and saw him purchase or pick-up the drugs? Did they follow him to the girlfriend’s house and witness him entering the house with the drugs? Did they raid her house as a coincidental matter of timing? If so, the police could have stopped him on the street before entering the house; which in that case there would be no evidence linking the girlfriend to the cocaine.
I believe it could have been explained to the defendant that in her situation the law would not pertain to her incident because of the tarasoff exception. In this case the baby's life was in danger so the privilege can be overcome provided that the patient demonstrates clear and present danger to a third party. The evidence acquired was admissible due to the tarasoff exception, so the defendant was charged with murder of the second degree, manslaughter counts in the first and second degree and endangering the welfare of a child(Bilkis, Stephen, April 19, 2012, New York personal injury lawyer blog,
The free and voluntary rule comprised of the 14th Amendment due process clause the Fifth Amendment clause, the prevailing test representing the law of confessions. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) represents a case law entailing each of the abovementioned amendments in which a suspect not read their rights before questioning would have their case dismissed due to evidence obtained illegally. In addition, if read their Miranda rights and refused enables them to utilize the fourth amendment protection against incriminating themselves. In addition, the defendant typically guaranteed a court appointed attorney. The confession if given upon analyzed to determine if the confession passes the voluntariness test (Soree,
Kimberly Ulbert Everest College Week 9 – Individual Work Identify a conflict being discussed in the public media. It may be a court case, a political position, or an issue of public policy. Currently, my soon to be mother in law is in the process of suing her daughter’s baby sitter. She found out that the sitter and her sister were watching 21 kids in the home. CPS came and found a lot of the kids under the age of 1 strapped in their car seats and hidden into closets.