Midterm
1. Decide as an appellate judge based on the law that you have learned whether the police had a legitimate exigency based on the 4th Amendment and whether the trial judge should have suppressed the marijuana cigarette as evidence. In King v. State the trial judge should NOT suppressed the marijuana blunt as evidence. In this situation the police had "probable cause," meaning there was reasonable basis for the officers to believe that a crime may have been committed when they heard "Some movement inside the apartment.” This justifies an exigent circumstance, where some Courts find a warrantless search or seizure completely acceptable; this is an exception to the general requirement of a warrant under the Fourth Amendment searches and seizures. Exigent circumstances occur when a law enforcement officer has probable cause and no sufficient time to secure a warrant because there is a high risk of possible destruction / loss of evidence...which in this case was inferred by the "Some movement inside the apartment." The State presented that same reason during trial " ..they have every reason in the world to think the occupants will try to destroy evidence and thus police officers can knock on someone’s door and burst in if they hear rustling or furtive movements as an …show more content…
Grant (found in our syllabus), the Supreme Court stated that law enforcement officers may conduct a search of the vehicle after the occupant 's arrest only if they believe that the vehicle contains evidence related to the arrest. This in my opinion can be applied in McGoo 's case because the officer conducted a further search in the trunk of his car to support the evidence he had already found like the alleged marijuana cigarette, even though it turned out to just parsley mixture blunt they officer had probable cause to believe it was marijuana due to the smell. The officer had good faith based on his experience, which resulted to the discovery of pills and cash in McGoo 's
1. Decide as an appellate judge based on the law that you have learned whether the police had a legitimate exigency based on the 4th Amendment and whether the trial judge should have suppressed the marijuana cigarette as evidence. In King v. State the trial judge should NOT suppressed the marijuana blunt as evidence. In this situation the police had "probable cause," meaning there was reasonable basis for the officers to believe that a crime may have been committed when they heard "Some movement inside the apartment.” This justifies an exigent circumstance, where some Courts find a warrantless search or seizure completely acceptable; this is an exception to the general requirement of a warrant under the Fourth Amendment searches and seizures. Exigent circumstances occur when a law enforcement officer has probable cause and no sufficient time to secure a warrant because there is a high risk of possible destruction / loss of evidence...which in this case was inferred by the "Some movement inside the apartment." The State presented that same reason during trial " ..they have every reason in the world to think the occupants will try to destroy evidence and thus police officers can knock on someone’s door and burst in if they hear rustling or furtive movements as an …show more content…
Grant (found in our syllabus), the Supreme Court stated that law enforcement officers may conduct a search of the vehicle after the occupant 's arrest only if they believe that the vehicle contains evidence related to the arrest. This in my opinion can be applied in McGoo 's case because the officer conducted a further search in the trunk of his car to support the evidence he had already found like the alleged marijuana cigarette, even though it turned out to just parsley mixture blunt they officer had probable cause to believe it was marijuana due to the smell. The officer had good faith based on his experience, which resulted to the discovery of pills and cash in McGoo 's