QUESTION 1 SMITH/JOHNSON/DANFORTH/BUCHANAN The prosecution wants to introduce the following items into evidence: * The “Pay/Owe Ledger” of Danforth * Agent Buchanan’s Testimony of Sally’s reaction to a photo. * Officer Smith’s testimony of what Johnson told him regarding Danforth. Hearsay/Nonhearsay. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. LEDGERS FOUND IN DANDFORTH ‘S VAN - HEARSAY/HEARSAY EXCEPTION A search incident found a variety of drugs and other paraphernalia in Danforth’s van as well as a ledger, according to the facts, that document the amounts and types of drugs sold and to whom these drugs were sold as well as what monies were exchanged.
No warrant was obtained for these searches. Ross’ attorneys made a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence found in the bag and the pouch on the grounds that the warrantless search of the car does not extend to searching closed containers found within. Ross was subsequently convicted of possession of heroin with intent to distribute. The heroin and currency found in the searches having been introduced in evidence after Ross’ pretrial motion to suppress the evidence had been denied. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, while the officers had probable cause to stop and search Ross’s car,
Hudson v. Michigan Background facts: Police obtained a warrant authorizing a search for drugs and firearms at the home of petitioner Booker Hudson. They discovered both. Large quantities of drugs were found, including cocaine rocks in Hudson’s pocket. A loaned gun was lodged between the cushion and armrest of the chair in which he was sitting. Hudson was charged under Michigan law with unlawful drug and firearm possession.
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.
U.S vs Katz Facts: The petitioner, Katz, was convicted of transmitting illegal gambling information over the telephone lines from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami. These illegal transactions were in violation of the federal law. Katz used a public telephone booth to do these illegal gambling procedures. A surveillance was set up at these booths by the FBI which were listening devices and placed at the top of the booths so that the conversations could be recorded. The tapes from the conversations were entered into the trial as evidence.
Charles Dickerson at this time was then taken into custody and placed under arrest. The timing of his self-incriminating statement was not completely known. “The FBI and local detectives testified that Dickerson was advised of his Miranda rights, established in Miranda v. Arizona, and waived them before he made his statement. Dickerson said he was not read his Miranda warnings until after he gave his statement.”
Under the Fourth Amendment, does the defendant have a right to privacy when he abandoned his suitcase in an airport, and did not claim it when he learned it had been turned in to authorities? STATEMENT OF THE CASE Arnold J. Stewart, defendant, sat before a federal grand jury in Utah. He was indicted on November 21, 2007. He was charged with “possession with intent to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B).” Stewart filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence on January 7, 2008.
Terrance Taylor ADJ 4 Oliver Thompson 4-2-11 Terrancetaylor32@yahoo.com 951-316-2072 Case Law Oliver Thompson was arrested for 459 pc- Burglary of an inhabited dwelling, 12964 Bordeaux Court, Moreno Valley, CA. He was arrested March 27, 2011, and his bail was set at 50,000. Upon his arrest, Oliver was searched and a hand gun with altered numbers, and a silencer was found on him. 459 pc is burglary, which is entering a structure with the intent to commit a felony once inside. All though burglary is referred to as “breaking and entering,” prosecutors can charge you with this offense even if there is no forced entry of the structure.
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
She felt he sabotaged the Wall Street Journal by allowing the New York Times to run the story. P&G’s position on their actions was stated as being due to the “significant and ongoing leaks of our confidential business data, plans and strategies.” They filed a complaint which resulted in a grand jury investigation. It was based on 1967 and 1974 laws which made it a crime for employees to give away articles representing trade secrets and prohibits employees from disclosing confidential information. Reporters are protected by the First Amendment and in Ohio, “shield-laws” protect the reporters’ confidential sources identity. The Ohio laws’ interpretation was ambiguous; therefore, P&G’s claims were unfounded.