The defendant was acting nervous with an evasive behavior and he was in a high crime area. These factors lead to the reasonable suspicion necessary for a Terry stop under the Fourth Amendment. Facts: The defendant William Wardlow was holding a opaque bag while visiting an area known for heavy narcotic trafficking, upon seeing the two officers on routine patrol he takes off and runs from the officers, the officers catch up with him and conducts a pat-down weapons search, they find a .38 caliber handgun on his person. Trial court denied Mr. Wardlows’ motion to suppress, but the appellate court reversed the decision. Illinois Supreme Court upheld the appellate courts results stating that the combination of running and the fact that the defendant was in a high drug area did not reach the status of reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a Terry stop.
Criminal Procedure Probable Cause Article Summary Sherita Burress CJA/364 November 21, 2011 Maxine Craig Supreme Court Is Unsuccessful In Defining “Probable Cause In Belief Of Guilt The Supreme Court decided a case on December 15, 2004, holding a law enforcement officer accountable for arresting an individuals for having merchandise in the car that he was riding in. It was stated that the merchandised belonged to neither the passenger or the driver of the vehicle that it was found in. This well known case is the case of Maryland v. Pringle, 124 S.Ct. 795 (2003), a solid decision of the Court. In the course of finding this case, the Maryland court was held accountable for not holding the police at fault for violating the
After a long drive he was being chased by a police officer for speeding Jose didn’t want to stop so he kept on going. The chase was ended by a deadly car crash when Jose hit a tour bus going to Santa Fe. In the accident there were only three people pronounced dead at the site Jose Rodriguez, the driver of the bus, and Carmen Rodriguez. Maria received a phone call form Carmen’s husband stating, “Maria did Carmen arrive safe to your house because on the news there was a report about an accident a bus going to Santa Fe and a car with a drunken man.” “Well mijo Carmen has not
The 2005 Roper v. Simmons case was a decision in which The Supreme Court had to decide whether capital punishment was unconstitutional to minors. Christopher Simmons a 17 year old boy at the time put together a plan to murder Shirley Crook because of a car accident they got in. The plan was to commit burglary by breaking and entering followed by murdering Mrs. Crook and throw her body off a bridge. Simmons guaranteed his friends Charles Benjamin who was 15 and John Tessmer who was 16 that they would “get away with it” because they were minors. (Scholar 556) On the night of the murder Simmons, Benjamin, and Tessmer met at approximately 2 a.m., but Tessmer backed out and left Simmons and Benjamin to commit the murder alone.
Police Encounters CJ227: Criminal Procedure Prof: Bernard Zapor 4/29/12 George Johnson Did Officer Smith have reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop of this vehicle? Yes Officer Smith had reasonable suspicion to suspect that the vehicle in front of her was the one involved in the killing of a fellow officer. One other reason is that Officer Smith believed that the older model gold Pontiac had a broken tail light that was covered with red tape. Officer Smith initial reason would be upheld by In People v. Remiro, 89 C.A. 3rd 809 (1979) if reasonable suspicion could be articulated in a court of law.
Administration of Justice Name: Period: 7-9 Date: 1/11/12 Title: Man Gets DUI in S.C. McDonald's Drive-Thru Paper: Officer.com Date of Paper: 12/15/11 Author: Nicole Smith Summary: This article is about a man who was accused of a DUI in a McDonald’s drive thru in South Carolina. While he was in the drive thru, he hit a car over by Cherry Road near Winthrop University. The man was clearly under the influence and had a strong alcohol smell. He lost his balance several time and was slurring his words. The man used the Breathalyzer and was a 0.21.
16 year old teen Ethan Couch became responsible for the death of four individuals. The night of the accident, Couch along with seven of his friends had stolen beer from a local Walmart and proceeded to get behind the wheel of his father’s company pickup truck. In addition to his blood alcohol level being three times over the adult legal limit, the perpetrator “also had traces of Valium in his system” (Voorhees). Couch committed an array of crimes the night of the accident including underage drinking, reckless driving, and manslaughter, yet the surge of controversy regarding this case stems from both around the defense and verdict, as the judge handed to Couch a rather lenient sentence given the circumstances; Couch was sentenced to rehab and to
On Jan. 4 this year, a warrant was issued for Bond’s arrest after he was charged with assault with a deadly weapon doing great bodily harm. John Hicks, a family friend for 25 years, stood with Rivera outside the crime-scene tape and talked about Bond. “He told me they’d have to kill him before he’d go back to jail,” Hicks said. Diaz said his officers had been looking for Bond and found him at his mother’s home. Officers had been watching the residence, and about 2:45 p.m. Saturday, Bond left on his bicycle.
University of Phoenix Material Ethical Dilemma Worksheet Incident Review What is the ethical issue or problem? Identify the issue succinctly. Two police officers receive a domestic violence call. Once the officers arrive on scene, they notice the following: husband has what appeared to be car keys in hand, vehicle’s hood is warm, husband fails a field sobriety test, and the dispatcher indicated that the husband physically assaulted his wife. What are the most important facts?
Running head: Armington / Double Jeopardy Armington / Double Jeopardy Paula Ahl Kaplan University LS311: Business Law 1 Professor Allen January 20, 2013 Armington / Double Jeopardy In the case of Armington who while robbing a drugstore, shot and injured Jennings, the drug store clerk, was convicted in criminal court of armed robbery and assault and battery. Later Jennings filed a civil tort suit against Armington for damages. Armington stated that according to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution he could not be tried again for the same crime because this would be double jeopardy. As stated in our text “double jeopardy is defined as being tried twice for the same criminal offense” (Miller & Jentz, 2008). 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).