ipl-logo

Minnesota Vs Dickerson Case Study

1019 Words5 Pages

To: Attorney Antoinette Dickens
From: Amali Hauter, Paralegal
Date: March 20, 2018
Re: Minnesota v. Dickerson 508 U.S. 366 (1993)

Inter-Office Memo
ASSIGNMENT
Review of the Minnesota v. Dickerson 508 U.S. 366 (1993). On November 9, 1989, two officers spotted Dickerson exiting an apartment building known for selling drugs. As Dickerson was walking down the sidewalk, he spotted the officers and turned around to walk the opposite way. The patrolling officers rose suspicion upon Dickerson’s behavior when he turned around as soon as he saw them. The officers proceeded to follow Dickerson and commanded that he stop. Dickerson stopped and allowed the officers to frisk him down to ensure that he was not carrying any firearms. The officer …show more content…

Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), Officer McFadden observed Terry’s suspicious behavior as he was walking down the sidewalk. The officer stopped Terry, and conducted a frisk only to find that he was carrying firearms. Terry was charged with carrying firearms, with the intent to conduct a daytime robbery. The case was moved to the Ohio Supreme Court, because Terry believed that Officer McFadden violated his Fourth Amendment when he conducted a search and seized the firearms that were located inside the jacket that Terry was wearing. Ohio Supreme Court argued that Terry’s Fourth Amendment was not violated because McFadden has reasonable doubt Terry was acting suspicious. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled to charged Terry because Officer McFadden acted within the scope of the Fourth Amendment based on suspicious behavior giving him probable cause to conduct the search and seizure of the …show more content…

In Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), the California Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence in plain view. Officers have the right to take any tangible items from an individual they may be frisking down at the moment if the officer has probable cause and believes that the items are related to a crime. Under the plain view doctrine, any contraband may be seized and used against an individual if it is in plain view, or in the reach of an officer; if the officer has been given permission to be in the place where the contraband is located; and if the individual has characterized suspicious behavior that led the officers to have probable cause to further retain the items in

Show More
Related

The United States V. Place 462 US Case Brief

510 Words | 3 Pages

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Facts: The respondent Raymond Place was stopped by Federal Agents (DEA) upon his arrival into LaGuardia Airport on a Friday afternoon. The respondent refused to consent to the search of his luggage. His luggage was seized by the agents under suspicion they contained narcotics. The respondent was informed the agents would be obtaining a search warrant from a judge.

Read More

Summary: The Case Of California Vs. Greenwood

276 Words | 2 Pages

The case of California v. Greenwood involves police who were investigating a potential drug trafficker, Greenwood. The police, who were acting on information that suggested that Greenwood could possibly be engaged in narcotics trafficking, obtained trash that Greenwood had left on the curb in front of his home. Considering the trash included items indicative of narcotics use, the police then obtained warrants to search Greenwood’s home, discovered controlled substances during their searches, and subsequently arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges. The issue in this case was whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of trash left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.

Read More

Utah V. Strieff Case Brief

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

Wendell Clayton Case Study

1593 Words | 7 Pages

The Majority of the court 's decision includes McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. The court had to decide in this case whether the seriousness of an offence or knowing that one might be a threat to public safety can be a justification to stop anyone without having solid evidence against them. The court stated that both Mr. Clayton and Mr. Farmer were guilty of carrying concealed weapons in a public place. The police had the right to search them even though their car didn’t match the description described by the 911 caller because the officers have to be consistent with their duty towards public safety and act in accordance to the seriousness of the

Read More

Maryland Vs Pringle Case Study

743 Words | 3 Pages

The majority opinion discussed the Fourth Amendment and explains now it provides the the ability to arrest individuals without a warrant when the officers have probable cause that a suspect has committed a criminal offense. During this traffic stop, the arresting officer determined a crime had occurred. It was up to the court to determine if the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle. Chief Justice Rehnquist determined that the arresting officers proved a crime occurred and there was probable cause to determine Pringle should be arrested. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, when three people are in the car where drugs are located and the owner of the drugs is not clear with no one admitting possession, it is reasonable for the officers to believe that either one or all of the occupants of the vehicle committed the offense.

Read More

Chrisman V. Supreme Court Case Analysis

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

US Supreme Court Case: The Mapp Vs. Ohio Case

955 Words | 4 Pages

Mapp vs. Ohio On June 19, 1961, the Mapp v. Ohio case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C. The situation addressed in court was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that people have the right to be secure in their houses, and it forbids unreasonable searches and seizures.

Read More

Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Barron V. Baltimore

1009 Words | 5 Pages

When Weeks was arrested, police officers entered his home without a warrant by using a key and began searching it for evidence. The officers then turned over evidence to the U.S. Marshals that was used to get a conviction. Weeks appealed the conviction which eventually came to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled unanimously that the search violated Weeks rights under the 4th Amendment. This ruling also prevented local police officers from securing evidence by ways that are prohibited under the federal exclusionary rule and giving it to federal investigators.

Read More

Terry V. Ohio Tests The Limitations Of The Fourth Amendment

841 Words | 4 Pages

Therefore the officer held a stop and frisk and found a .38 on both men. Officer McFadden states that he feared the two men may have had a gun. Therefore during an investigation, he does have the right to stop and frisk those men. Any kind of search and seizure must be thought of under the certain circumstances. In this case, it is two men walking past a storefront a few dozen times and having a meeting after every time they walked the block.

Read More

Riley Vs California Case Study

1299 Words | 6 Pages

Before impounding Riley’s vehicle, the officer preformed routine checks on the vehicle and of the suspect. One check included conducting an inventory search of the car. Through a thorough search of the vehicle, the officer discovered that Riley was in possession of concealed and loaded firearms, including two handguns, which were located under the car’s hood.

Read More

Riley Vs California Research Paper

833 Words | 4 Pages

“Riley v. California”) Bensur and Brokamp say in their article that in court, Riley claimed that his Fourth Amendment right was violated because the officers did not have probable cause also called reasonable suspicion to examine his phone. The case went to the Supreme Court and the judges agreed that the police had acted

Read More

Riley Vs California Case Study

1596 Words | 7 Pages

Riley’s lawyer gathered as much evidence as he could to prove that the San Diego police officer did not have the right to confiscate Riley’s cell phone without a warrant. Riley’s lawyer also believed that because the officer search without a warrant he violated Riley’s fourth amendment right. At Mr. Riley’s trial, police officers testified about the photographs and other sources on the cell phone and these were admitted into evidence. The trial court wound up rejecting all of the lawyers arguments and believed that the search followed the “search incident to a lawful arrest” doctrine. This doctrine allows for police to conduct a search on items such as cell phones whenever that item is found near the suspect at the time of arrest.

Read More

David Riley Case

713 Words | 3 Pages

A man named David Riley was arrested after a traffic stop in California. The police later searched Riley’s car and found several guns in the vehicle. The police then took his phone and with the information they found, were able to convict him of an unrelated shooting several weeks prior to the traffic stop. However, the police did not receive a warrant before looking through Riley’s phone. Some say that because the police were not granted a warrant they had violated the Fourth Amendment right that protects people from “unreasonable searches and seizures”.

Read More

Terry Vs Ohio Case Study

709 Words | 3 Pages

Terry v. Ohio (1968) This decision established that police officers may stop and frisk individuals if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal activity. This decision has been important in shaping police practices and has been used to justify the use of stop-and-frisk tactics in certain situations. Terry v. Ohio (1968) is an important case in the history of criminal law in the United States. The case dealt with the issue of whether police officers can stop and frisk individuals if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal activity.

Read More

Cause And Effect Of Argumentative Essay On Stop And Frisk

1777 Words | 8 Pages

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous. October 31, 1963, while on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, Cleveland Police Department Detective Martin McFadden, age 62, saw two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on a street corner at 1276 Euclid Avenue and acting in a way the officer thought was suspicious. Detective McFadden watch these two guys going back and forward doing the same routine about a dozen times staring in the same store window. Next, Detective McFadden saw another third person join in the transaction named Katz exchanging words casing out the store front and Katz walking away.

Read More

More about Minnesota Vs Dickerson Case Study

Related Topics

Open Document