Supreme Court Case Of Ohio Terry V. Ohio

1. Reasonable suspicion was defined as less than probable cause (having a reason to search a suspect's person or property) but more than a hunch (an idea or guess of a suspect’s criminal activity) as described in the Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio, 1968). In this case and at this point in the investigation, reasonable suspicion (Specific and factual evidence directed towards a search and/or arrest) exists purely because Mr. Wilkens was found driving down the road of the scene right after the murder at 1 hour after midnight. Because he was near the scene of the crime, I would be legally allowed to stop, frisk and question Mr. Wilkens about why he was there, what he was doing at one in the morning and if he was aware of what

Cindy Sarles was the ex girlfriend of the victim, Randy Odleman, who had recently broke up with her. Based on this information alone, it is reasonable to make her a suspect in the case. Exigent circumstances would allow police to enter the premises if they had enough evidence to enter Cindy’s house with or without a warrant. However, there is not enough evidence to place Cindy at the scene of the crime and since she refused to let the police into her apartment, they are required to get a warrant. The 4th Amendment protects all citizens of the United States from illegal and unreasonable search and seizures (4th Amendment). If the police were to conduct a search without a warrant or consent in this situation, any and all evidence found would be prohibited from use against the suspect in the court of law. This rule is called the exclusionary law, created under the Supreme Court ruling of Mapp v. Ohio (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961), states that any evidence that is illegally obtained during an investigation cannot be used in the court of

Bloody footprints led the way to the front door of Mr. Tim Highstring’s apartment door and then continued throughout his apartment (within eyesight of the door). This is more than enough evidence to create probable cause to enter Highstring’s apartment. Since it is possible to see footprints from the outside, officers can apply the Plain-view doctrine. This doctrine says that if an officer has probable cause and can see contraband within the property of a suspect, they have the right to enter, search and seize any evidence. In this case, the officers have probable cause to enter the premises without a warrant because bloody footprints are traced into the apartment. Furthermore, several other residents of the rooming house where Odleman was found claim that Highstring owed the victim money, he did not seem bothered by the fact that Odleman was killed and he was intoxicated when he answered the