John Smith Case Study Essay

Improved Essays
The evidence obtain during the search of John Smith vehicle should not be admissible in court and a motion to suppress should be file. The Fourth Amendment protects against unlawful search and seizures applies to routine traffic stops as in this case. Officer Roberts should have had probable cause that a crime has been committed in order to search and gather evidence without a valid search warrant. Officer Roberts pull John Smith over because he thought there was an obstruction in his windshield this could be argued as probable cause, but he did not know if his search would justify the issuance of a warrant. When discovered that the obstruction was a disability badge there was no reason to continue with the traffic stop. It is clear as to the need for the stop, but there was not a need for there to …show more content…
The gun found was used in the murder of Rhoda Dendrum; it was registered to John Smith who had a permit to carry a conceal weapon. Something Officer Roberts fail to acknowledge at the time of searching the vehicle. John Smith was held on charges of possession of a firearm. When the ballistics test came back on the firearm it confirmed that it was the same one use in the murder. This led the police to do a search on John Smith cell phone which was also done without a search warrant. In the case of Riley v. California the Supreme Court ruled that a cell phone could not be searched in connection with an arrest unless a warrant is obtain from a judge or there is consent. John Smith phone was search because he was arrested for the murder of Rhoda Dendrum. The police was looking for evidence to link John Smith to Rhoda and they found it on his phone. This wasn’t an Exigent circumstance John Smith was not in possession of his phone while he was in police custody therefore there was no emergency for officers to search it without a

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Alomar phone should be excluded because the law that authorized the search itself was not reasonable. During the search of the cell phone Det. Colabello should not have opened the photo of the handgun due to the fact that it was not legally authorized nor was there any legal reasoning to open the photos. Legally, officers are permitted to search and gather evidence illegally when they suspect the evidence needed will be destroyed in the time need to apply and receive a warrant. Which is known as “Hot Pursuit”.…

    • 1144 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Arizona case, highlight the requirements of a search and seizure under the fourth amendment . In this case , the supreme court describes that police officers cannot search a vehicle without a warrant unless the police officers believe that the arrestee has had access to the vehicle after the was arrested. Yet, if the officer is certain that the arrestee had access to the car after been placed under arrests and it contains evidence. This is the only exception the Supreme court establish a search in a car passenger compartment. But in Gant V. Arizona there was no evidence that the police need to search because Gant did not have access to the car after been detained.…

    • 671 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Actus Rea

    • 1024 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Analysis: Mens Rea Issue: Did Jason and Arooj have mens rea? Rule; A person is not guilty of an offensive unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently. The state will argue, picking that picking the lock proves Jason and Arooj quickly panned a way to get inside Jay-z’s place, so they premediated how to go into Jay-z’s home. Jason and Arooj will argue, they intended to say hi to Jay-z, so they had no intention to commit a crime. There is no mens rea because Jason and Arroj didn’t specifically plan on breaking into Jay-z home.…

    • 1024 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Peradventure, that the police are serving a legal warrant to pick up robbery suspect who also is a known drug dealer, because of the exclusionary rule from Mapp v. Ohio when the police arrive at the suspect address, they are not allow to search the home looking for drugs unless the warrant stipulates. Because of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Mapp v. Ohio complicates law enforcement with bureaucracy and suppresses simple law enforcement.…

    • 598 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Achman Case Study

    • 748 Words
    • 3 Pages

    During the search, police found things like a Uzi machine gun, a .38 caliber revolver, two stun guns, and a handcuff key, but did not find the supposedly stolen stuff. Police Officers did confiscate the weapons while in search for the stolen items and used it in court. So therefore his fourth amendment was violated. The 4th amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This action performed by the police officers reminds me of the supreme court case, Mapp V. Ohio.…

    • 748 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The main issue in this case was if warrantless searches and seizures of garbage left for collection outside of the home violates the Fourth Amendment. The case, People v. Krivda, created a California state law that forbids warrantless searches of trash. Due to this state law, charges against Greenwood in the California courts were dismissed because finding probable cause to obtain a search warrant would not have been possible, had the evidence from the trash not been obtained. However, in Federal Court, this state law does not apply.…

    • 1366 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    David Riley Case

    • 528 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The court concluded that a warrantless search is only pardoned when there are purposes of protecting the arresting officer or to preserve any essential evidence. None of these two exceptions were present during the arrest and seizure of the cell phone. Police officers have the capability to protect internal cell phone evidence by disconnecting the phone from the network or even placing the phone in a faraday bag. Apart from preserving evidence, digital data cannot be used in a manner to harm a police officer. There was no proof of exigent circumstances during the arrest of Riley, so the arresting officer and detective violated David Riley’s Fourth amendment right.…

    • 528 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Without a search warrant, they arrested Mr. Rodriguez for battery and illegal guns being seized. The search warrant must be issued to search specific areas or persons. Three, consent; a person can give an officer to have authority to search or seizure. Four, Stop and Frisk: An officer can stop a suspect as long as there is a reasonable suspicion. Five, Automobile exception: a warrant is not required to search vehicles, if there is probable cause.…

    • 787 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    First, Officer Ferguson conducted the search and seizure of the suicide note after an independent investigation separate from the initial search. (PR.) Although it is unclear how much time passed between the initial search and final search, because only after taking Mr. Meyers to the police station, then Mr. Meyers’ Miranda rights, a complete interrogation, and consent from Mr. Meyers, did Officer Ferguson seized the note. (PR.) Therefore, the exclusionary rule applies to the present and based on the attenuation doctrine, evidence of the suicide note should not be…

    • 415 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Based off this description, and with no other outward signs of criminal activity taking place, Mr. Howard was stopped by a security officer and subsequently frisked. Mr. Howard’s jacket was zipped, and thus, the gun could not be seen. Security personnel found the weapon on Mr. Howard’s person, and he was arrested. Mr. Howard was charged with the unlawful possession of a gun. Analysis: Due to the given facts, the encounter that took place between Happy Howard and the police officer was an improper stop that heightened into an unlawful search and seizure,…

    • 1157 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays