Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Fourth amendment rights explained
Fourth amendment rights explained
The 4th amendment explained
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Fourth amendment rights explained
Fourth amendment rights explained
The 4th amendment explained
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Fourth amendment rights explained
Title: Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Date/Court: The United States Supreme Court, 1973 Facts: This case deals with Clyde Bustamonte, who tried to defraud a check. At 2:40 a.m. local Sunnyvale Police Officer James Rand stopped a vehicle that had a burnt out headlight and license plate light. When Officer Rand approached the vehicle he found that the individuals Joe Alcala, Bustamonte, and Joe Gonzales were in the front seat. In the rear of the vehicle Officer Rand saw three older gentlemen, Officer Rand then asked the driver if he had identification and the driver (Gonzales) did not have any. Rand then asked the other individuals in the car and only Alcala had a valid license, after producing his license Alcala told the officer that the car was his brothers.
John Giglio was charged with passing forged money orders and sentenced to five years imprisonment. During the appeal, Giglio counsel discovered new evidence representing that the prosecutors had failed to reveal a promise made to its “key witness” that he wouldn’t be prosecuted if he testified for the government. The Court granted a certiorari to determine whether the evidence not revealed would require a retrial under the due process standards Napue v. Illinoi, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Evidence showed at trial, representatives at Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. learned that Robert Taliento, key witness and co-conspirator, was a banker teller and also had cashed several forged money orders. He confessed to providing Giglio with a customer’s bank signature card used by John Giglio to forge $2,300 in money orders.
a) The police had conducted due investigations including a background search on the ownership of the premises and the vehicle that was being used by the suspects. The background search results corroborated the unidentified police informant’s accounts on the suspect’s identity. Thus the police had probable cause to believe the suspects were involved in criminal activities. b) Based on CRI-2 account of the activities of Mildred, and the background check by affiants, their inference that Mildred was in fact involved in illegal activities was indisputable and as such the affidavit satisfied the test of reliability and the judge needed no further or extra information to issue the search warrant. c) The period the affiants were involved in observing, documenting and piecing together different parts of evidence necessary to form a probable cause as to the conduct of the suspects is sufficient and meets the test of “acting in good faith” to obtain the warrant to search the person of the defendant and vehicle and are not in any violation of the defendant fourth amendment right to privacy.
The action was brought as a test case to determine the legal rights of the Meriam people to land on the islands of Mer, Dauar and Waier in the Torres Strait, which were annexed to the state of Queensland in 1879. Prior to British contact the Meriam people had lived on the islands in a subsistence economy based on cultivation and fishing. Land on the islands was not subject of public or general community ownership, but was regarded as belonging to individuals or groups. In 1985 the Queensland Government attempted to terminate the proceedings by enacting the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985, which declared that on annexation of the islands in 1879, title to the islands was vested in the state of Queensland "freed from all other
In the case of State v. Barrett (1996), a drug detection team was brought in to conduct a random drug search of the high school on May 3, 1995 in St. Tammany Parish. Six classes were chosen by the principal, who had mentioned some of the selected classes were known to have some of the "problem" students, including the 18 year-old defendant. During the third classroom search, the defendant 's classroom, students were asked to empty their pockets and leave the room. The dogs were brought in and one of the dog 's alerted a smell on the defendant 's wallet. After the principal searched the wallet and found $400 in cash, he placed it in a different location, which the dog alerted on once again.
There was overwhelming evidence to show that Stone had earlier beaten Stone and declared him a dead snitch. Additionally, when he was last seen, the deceased was in the company of Towler, the same man who had earlier beaten him and who had a motive to kill him. Although there was evidence that Stone could have died from other causes that were nor crime related, the introduction of evidence by the prosecution on criminal agency were sufficient to convict Towler. On the action of the district attorney seizing documents from Towler without a warrant or the consent of the defense counsel, the same cannot warrant the dismissal of a case or the watering down of evidence presented (Gardner & Anderson, 2009). The prosecution evidence presented clearly proves that Towler had
It made it to the Court of Appeals because of writ of certiorari Key Issues If the police made false arrest? Did the police have probable cause to make an arrest? If they didn’t have probable cause to make the arrest do they have qualified immunity?
In this case Kyllo v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled against the vitric of the lower courts on a 5 to 4 vote. The questions that need to be answered in this case, in my opinion serve a bigger purpose then the case at hand. The case itself is about a man named Danny Kyllo who was growing marijuana plants inside his home illegally. An officer of the U.S Interior Department got a tip that this man was illegally growing plants inside his home and went to investigate this. Obviously a tip from an unknown is not enough information to get a warrant to search the man’s property.
He found that Police procedures with regard to evidence referencing, police chain of custody and overall collection of evidence. He stated that the Queensland Police Force failed the most rudimentary collection protocols and this lead to confusion in the labelling of exhibits and their actual obtaining from the accused. He further pointed out that searches were conducted in a manner that exposed the primary and secondary crime scenes to contamination. A video of the Police search showed that none of the officers involved wore protective clothing, gloves or booties; that swab testing of the car showed that the officer involved in collection conducted the Sangur strip test and actually allowed his fingers to come in contact, thus providing a false positive indication for human blood, when it was noticed that he had a small cut on his finger; fingerprint collection was done before testing for human enzymes which also could have produced a false positive due to the chemical makeup of the powder used (the force used Magnapowder which has a metallic composition and this reacted with the test strips); photographs of the boot floor showed that none of the items were laid out on white protective paper. This would also have prevented cross contamination and enabled the collection of any evidence that fell from the boot.
the first officer to respond to the carjacking scene gathered items that contained the suspects blood, among the items were the victims pants and shoes. When its was determined the pants were checked out a never returned it was then Elisa knew something was wrong. When looking at the evidence report it was determined that the suspect of the carjacking case had blood type B. After further investigation Elisa determined is was no way possible Thompson committed the carjacking he had type O blood. The evidence was presented to Patrick Quinland the presiding judge over both of Thompson’s cases. At the hearing it was determined that the prosecutors involved (Harry Connick sr.
On December fourteenth of 2012, Adam Lanza walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut and shot twenty-six kids and teachers using a .223 Caliber Bushmaster Model XM15 assault rifle. By definition, a mass shooting has to consist of at least four victims, therefore, mass shootings occur every day while only the major incidents make national news. This particular shooting affected many and will forever have in imprint on gun laws, the safety of schools, and the part mental health plays. The multipath model can be applied to Adam explaining what might have led to the massacre. Adam was diagnosed with a mild form of Autism Spectrum Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.
Although in this case, Escobedo confessed his crime before his rights were stated to him, therefore, "... no statement extracted by the police during the interrogation may be used against him at a trial," (ESCOBEDO v. ILLINOIS) which caused his confession overthrown by the court. In addition, this case is interesting to me because I believe it was fascinating how the accused murderer, Escobedo, was able to get away with his crime simply because his Miranda Rights were not stated to him before he confessed and was denied his right to counsel which was the police department's
Lorex has decided to sell each bottle of 10 oz. Linatol at $15.5 ($186/12= $15.5). -Currently, Lorex has experienced several problems that each of Linatol bottle is not filled with the required amount. The reason is due to the production machine, which used to fill those Linatol bottles, does not function in the right way as it is supposed to be. Then, it leads Lorex has to hired some more workers to hand filled those bottles to the right amount.
Mr. Berlinksi admitted to being “drunk” after having more than four shots of whiskey at his girlfriend’s home. Both his breathalyzer tests resulted in 0.12. However, on the question of whether he was in “actual physical control,” evidence shows that Mr. Berlinski was asleep, with the radio and the A/C on. He readily admits that his girlfriend kicked him out of her home without his phone, and was therefore unable to call anyone for assistance, deciding then to “sleep it off” inside his vehicle.
Hi Tekia! • Constructive feedback on the Intervention Plan detailed in the Case Summary: Your decision to use a solution-focus approach with Abby seems appropriate for the behaviors she has displayed. Abby gives the impression that she is trying. I am sure she has the knowledge of what would make her life better, even though she may need considerable help describing the details of her desired life. Her willingness to consider your assistance to make home life better brings awareness that she already possesses the minimal skills necessary to create solutions for herself.