Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
A Essayon the Crime Scene Investigations
Crime scene investigation process
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
A Essayon the Crime Scene Investigations
Crime scene investigation process
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
State, where the female decoy was robbed. The court determined that the defendant in that case was not entrapped because stole the money from her zipped up purse. However, that case is separated from this case because of the condition that decoy was appeared to be in. The court held that the opportunity Miller was given to commit a crime was not improper; he had a choice not to take the money but he did. The court also denied Miller claim of police misconduct, they found Leavitt did not con Miller into stealing the money.
Title: Chimel v. California Date/Court: United States Supreme Court, 1969 Facts: This case deals with Ted Chimel, who they suspected robbed a local coin shop. On September 13, 1965, several officers from Santa Ana came to the home of Chimel with an arrest warrant for his expected involvement in the burglary. The officers arrived at the door and identified themselves to Chimel’s wife and asked if they could come into the home, she agreed and showed them into the house. While in the house the officers waited 10-15 minutes until Chimel came home from work.
I responded to 106 Wildridge Road in reference to a civil complaint. Upon arrival, I spoke with Mark and Anna Sanders. Both subjects advised that they paid David Sasser $350.00 dollars to build their son a bunk bed. They advised that Sasser told them that he spent all the money and didn’t buy any supplies. Mark then agreed that he would take Sasser to get the wood that he need, and pay for it.
On October 3, 1974, at around 10:45 pm, Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright of the Memphis Police Department were responding to a “prowler on the inside” call. They made the scene and observed a woman in the house next to the intended home of the call. She was standing on her front porch pointing at the house. She advised that she had heard glass breaking and someone was breaking into the house next door. As Wright showed both officers on the scene on his radio to dispatch, Hymon went to the rear of the house.
Although, the police officers had a search warrant they had it for the wrong unit which placed a family in danger and they raided the wrong unit in the first place but then raided the right one where they find the evidence but because it was found illegally the judge dismissed all of the evidence against Shakeel “Blam” Wiggins because of the Exclusionary Rule. Now the reason the evidence was dismissed was because there was no specific address on the warrant and this means that an officer cannot just search every unit in the multi-family house until they find evidence against the
In Steubenville, Ohio, a sixteen-year-old girl was attending a local high school party with her friends. The girl was more intoxicated than others and refused to go home after the party was shut down. She then joined a group of guys who were going to another party and when they get there, the girl was too drunk to remember anything else. Two of the boys that were with her were Trent Mays and Malik Richmond. Both of them were football players at Steubenville High School, which was a big deal in small town Steubenville.
In September of 1961, a woman from District of Columbia had an intruder break into her apartment. While the invader of the home was there, they had taken her wallet, and also raped the woman. During the investigation of the crime, the police had found some latent fingerprints in the apartment. The police then established and processed the prints. The prints were then connected back to 16 year old Morris A. Kent.
Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, and demanded entry. No suspect was found, but police discovered a trunk of obscene pictures in Mapp 's basement. Mapp was arrested for possessing the pictures, and was convicted in an Ohio court where she lost the case in fighting her for first amendment rights. Then, Mapp argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search of the officers and got her case taken to the U.S. Supreme Court where she won. At the time of the case, unlawfully seized evidence was banned from federal courts but not state courts, meaning that the evidence found in Mapp’s home was used against her in the Ohio court, but not the U.S. Supreme Court.
(Sifferlen, 1991) The landmark cases pertaining to protective sweeps are Chimel v. California and Buie v. Maryland, which establish limitations when performing protective sweeps (Sifferlen, 1991). In Chimel v. California the police executed an in-home arrest warrant, and during their search incident to arrest, they had Chimel’s wife open up dresser drawers revealing evidence of the burglary without a search warrant (Hall, 2015). This type of search was exceeded the intent of protecting police from harm and therefore was proclaimed unconstitutional (Hall, 2015). Additionally, in Maryland v. Buie an officer seized a red running suit utilized in an armed robbery, however the officer initiated a protective sweep of the home because there were still outstanding offenders from the robbery (Sifferlen, 1991). Maryland v. Buie balances officer safety versus the intrusiveness of the search under the Fourth Amendment by limiting police to scope of a protective sweep to places large enough for a person to hide (Sifferlen, 1991).
Good Afternoon, I am Betty’s Housing Advisor. The adjustment was made for her because she stated she owes back money to you because of a misunderstand from CMHA. There was several HAP letters that came out to Betty about her rent portion changing. I noticed in the her file, one of our previous advisors processed something late and still required Betty to pay the rent. When she should have been give at least a thirty day notice.
When Paul Bieger was the lawyer for the defense he had to imply that Frank Mansion was crazy or insane because the other three defense charges could not be used in this case. But if he could imply that Frank Mansion was insane during the time when he committed the crime there was a chance that Paul Bieger could win the case. But Paul had to prove that the reason Bieger went insane during that time was because he just heard news about his wife getting raped by Quill. Frank was not able to constraint or anything other than getting payback for what Quill did. On the prosecutor side the lawyer Mitch Lodwick had to prove that during the time Mr. Mansion had time to deliberate planning, premeditation, or malice.
A New Leaf provides various different services including domestic violence shelters, after school care, and residential care. The Larry Simons Residences (LSR) is a Residential Treatment Center (RTC) for adolescent males and females ages 12-18. LSR follows regulations established by the Arizona Department of Health Services and the Bureau of Residential Facilities (Arizona Department of Health Services, n.d.). Social policies concerning adolescent substance abuse, affect this case. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 requires coverage for mental health and substance use disorder services (Anthony, Jenson, and Howard, 2016).
Before 1948 Julius A. Wolf had been arrested and tried for reasons not stated in the Supreme Court case, but the evidence that was used against Wolf was taken unlawfully, the police had no warrant for his arrest as well as no warrant to search his office. Wolf was able to get an appeal to be tried one more time. In 1948 the trial Wolf v Colorado Supreme Court had begun. It was a very controversial topic because the case was based on the violation of the Fourth Amendment right of protection from search and seizures.
In March of 1931 nine black boys were riding a train in Tennessee. A group of white boys who had also been on the train got off and told the police that the boys on the train had raped two white girls. When questioned the girls also said that they had been raped and all nine boys were arrested. Unlike Leonard Basey the Scottsboro Boys were given a trial. While they were given a trial it was definitely not a fair one.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated… We all know the fourth amendment. It's the amendment that guarantees our safety within our homes and our personal belongings. Yet, how much do you know about the fourth amendment? The fourth amendment is full of history, controversy, and discussion, even in modern day.