Jinathan Blake Case

Facts:

Mr. Johnathan Blake was a guest at Jessie Smiths home at 3630 16th St. NW, Washington DC, 20015. While inside the residents where watching the Super bowl when police officers responded to a disturbance call, during the disturbance call police officers allegedly observed Mr. Blake smoking marijuana through a large window in the living room and passing unknown substance to someone. Mr. Smith the owner of the home allowed the police to enter the premises upon which the officers informed them that they had witness the smoking of marijuana and distribution of a white substance and allegedly discovered firearms under the couch. Police conducted pat-down search of Mr. Blake finding large amount of suspected marijuana, suspected cocaine, and

Blake. First, possession of a Controlled Substance Type of Offense: Misdemeanor. DC Code Citation: (§48-904.01, §48-904.08) states that; the defendant possessed a controlled substance. The defendant did so knowingly and intentionally. This means consciously, voluntarily, and on purpose. However, Mr. Blake being intoxicated at the time could have mistakenly placed the controlled substance in his pocket and or passed it to his friend. Intoxication can be defined as a state in which a person's normal capacity to act or reason is inhibited by alcohol or drugs (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Intoxication). Possession/Distribution of a Controlled Substance Type of Offense: Felony. DC Code Citation: (§48- 904.01) Charge Elements include; the defendant distributed a controlled substance. To distribute means to transfer or to attempt to transfer an item to another person. The government need not prove that the defendant received or expected to receive anything of value in return. The defendant distributed the controlled substance knowingly and intentionally. This means consciously, voluntarily, and on purpose. One can reason that without the knowledge of prior convictions and the fact of being under the influence even when granted access to the building all evidence found on Mr. Blake’s person would not be admissible without the consent to search his person.

Blake as a guest at Mr. Smith’s home expected to continue to have his Fourth Amendment rights once entering the residence. Mr. Blake had a large connection to Mr. Smith being he is the co-owner of their business and is a friend of the families. The police officers watching through the window is a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights where a search occurs when a governmental employee or agent of the government violates an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment) In this case the police officers observed illegally the inside of Mr. Smith’s home. 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.