ipl-logo

Arizona Vs Gant Case Study

1091 Words5 Pages

In Arizona vs Gant, the case began when Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license (Justia US Supreme Court, n.d.). The arresting officers handcuffed Gant and then placed him into a police car before searching the vehicle Gant had been operating (Justia US Supreme Court, n.d.). Within the vehicle, the cops found cocaine in a jacket pocket. Gant was charged with possession of narcotics (Justia US Supreme Court, n.d.). At trial, Rodney Gant argued that searching his car was a violation of his Fourth Amendment right (Justia US Supreme Court, n.d.). Initially, the judge disagreed, stating that the officers were in the right (Justia US Supreme Court, n.d.). It was later overturned by the State Supreme Court, who found that searches …show more content…

Officers must prove that consent was given voluntarily, and that the suspect in question was not threatened or given promises in exchange for their consent. In the event that someone gives consent to an officer, there is no requirement for probably cause (Law Officer, 2008). Giving consent, while seemingly simple, actually has several factors which must be considered. Among these, two of the most important are age and who is functionally capable of giving consent. Children are unable to give consent due to their age, and thus, depending on the state guidelines, the age of a person able to consent varies (Law Officer, 2008). When it comes to who is capable of consenting, per cognitive functioning, police officers must take into account being under the influence, psychological issues, injuries, and language barriers (Law Officer, 2008). A person may revoke their consent at any given time, thus forcing the officer to cease their search (Law Officer, 2008). Funnily enough, officers do not have to inform someone that they have the option to decline consent, as established in Schneckloth vs Bustamonte (Law Officer,

Show More
Related
316 Words | 2 Pages

The case, Utah v. Strieff, A criminal case involving probable cause and the Fourth amendment was a case in Utah, where a narcotics detective made an arrest of a man, who was not actively involved in a crime but had frequented a suspected drug house. The suspect, Mr. Strieff had a previous warrant and was seen leaving the home where drugs are known. The detective, Officer Fackrell had been watching the home for over a week based on a tip of suspected drug activity. Officer Fackrell watched Mr. Strieff leave the house, walk to a store and proceeded to stop him, ask for his ID and called his name in to see if he had any warrants. He did have a warrant for traffic violation and the officer arrested him, searched him and found illegal drugs on him.

Read More
428 Words | 2 Pages

The student’s voluntarily provided the officer with additional drugs and provided written consent, to a search of the room although they had the right to refuse the search and demand a search warrant. Reasoning/Analysis of the Court The Court held that the "plain view" exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permitted the officers to seize clearly incriminating evidence discovered "in a place where the officer has a right to be." The Court held that the officer had a right to be at the first students’ elbow at all times. The officer obtained lawful access to the student’s dorm room and was free to seize incriminating evidence.

Read More
627 Words | 3 Pages

[1] Decision: In this case it was found that the officer did have probable cause to believe that the crime of possession of the cocaine was that of Pringle. Due to this the arrest did not contravene the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. So, the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland was reversed, leaving the case remanded for any further proceedings and is not inconsistent with the opinion of the Court. [1] Comment: This case shows a warrantless search and arrest based on what the officer sees with his belief that a crime is being committed or that it has been committed. Resources: 1.

Read More
288 Words | 2 Pages

Once there, and before asking Powell any questions, the officers advised Powell of his rights by reading them from the standard Tampa Police Department consent and release form. Powell acknowledged his rights had been read to him and that he understood his rights by signing the consent form. Powell

Read More
1113 Words | 5 Pages

Even if it was to be allowed in the court of law the defendant Mr. Blake was intoxicated and not thinking clearly. The Officers also allegedly observed Mr. Blake hand a baggie of white powder to someone standing near the couch. This was allegedly to be observed during the violation of the Fourth Amendment right along with the pat-down search of his body without Mr. Blake’s consent. A search or seizure is generally unreasonable and illegal without a warrant (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment).This search which lead to the arrest of Mr. Blake did not have probable cause due to all evidence leading up to the search and under the exclusionary rule, all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Federal Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court. (Mapp v.

Read More
429 Words | 2 Pages

This is a landmark case as the State of Arizona argued the "bright line" rule was established in New York v. Belton, and the U.S. Supreme Court defined the "bright line" rule as to authorize law enforcement officers the right to search a vehicle's passenger compartment, including the immediate area of where the arrestee was in search incident to arrest, after a lawful arrest has been made and is a result of a contemporaneous incident.   In Chimel v. California, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a search incident to an arrest is permissible as long as the officer can articulate safety for the officers is present and preserving evidence is a factor. Furthermore, Thornton v. United States gave an additive to law enforcement as the U.S Supreme Court ruled that officers could initiate warrantless searches of vehicles incident to arrest of both occupants and recent occupants (Staff,

Read More
584 Words | 3 Pages

The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).

Read More
487 Words | 2 Pages

The Arizona v. Gant case is very interesting. Gant also had a gun in the car. I’m assuming Gant didn’t consent to the search, even though I don’t see any of that mentioned in the case. Normally, police officers ask if they can search your car. I’m a bit confused though.

Read More
153 Words | 1 Pages

Several exceptions to the Fourth amendment have been made over the past several decades, with some being understandable and others being questionable. Consenting to a search results in not needing a warrant, though this poses many exceptions and complications, i.e. the scope of the consent given, whether consent is voluntarily specified, or whether a person has the right to consent to a search of another's property. Another understandable exception is the “plain view” doctrine, where an officer (acting in legal presence) can seize plain view objects. The stipulation to this is that the officer must have had probable clause that the objects seized are contraband. Exigent circumstances, where it would be harmful or impractical to obtain a warrant

Read More
181 Words | 1 Pages

Search and seizure law is actually one of the detrimental issues in the criminal justice system. Many officers are sometimes faced with constraints and are not able to work properly given that they fail to understand and distinguish between situations when search warrant are required ( Del, 2014). In incidents that have lawful arrest as well as when there is a plain view exception. In areas where consent is given by a person in authority, there is no need for the search warrant required together with the police stops and frisking a person whom they have a reasonable suspicion on of an act that is equated to a crime. Another example is when a situation is an emergency and there is a hot pursuit given the evidence may disappear before the warrant

Read More
600 Words | 3 Pages

We must first define what consent is. There are many different ways the definition of consent is used, but in regards to the law, consent is voluntary agreement to another person or

Read More
1783 Words | 8 Pages

This consent, in some instances, can be influenced by alcohol or drugs making it impossible for one or both parties to consent

Read More
273 Words | 2 Pages

Consent is providing a verbal agreement for something to happen. Emmaleigh Barringer was only 10-months-old, therefore she was unable to consent. Being so young she was also physically helpless therefore, unable to defender herself.

Read More
1727 Words | 7 Pages

The power of coercion leaves them wondering if they allowed the assault to happen because they lessened the trauma of the act. Consent has to be

Read More
481 Words | 2 Pages

Based on an article written by Jonathan Herring, author and professor of Law at Exeter College, University of Oxford, “In the context of rape, consent is required because a sexual penetration is a prima facie wrong. It involves the use of force against a body and involves risks to the other person.” (63). Since consent is required no matter what the situation is, one must not assume that they are respecting someone’s decision of granting consent at the time of the incident even though it is a form of free informed consent. There are three types of autonomy in the context of rape: ideal desire, best desire, and current desire.

Read More

More about Arizona Vs Gant Case Study

Related Topics

Open Document