Seizure trigger

The Prosecution In this case, the prosecutor can argue that the accused wife gave verbal consent to the police officers to search the resident, without the officers having to obtained a search warrant, and the police had significant probable cause to be at the resident. The prosecutor can argue that the consent from the accused wife was sufficient enough to search the resident, since she was a co-occupant of the resident. The prosecutor could argue that a warrant-less search conducted in the…

The policy that the New York Police Department has is questionable, with the information that given in the article. The article states, "The stop-and-frisk policy -- in which police stop, question and frisk people they deem suspicious, even if they've committed no crime -- has been one of the most controversial policing techniques in recent time, fueled by clashes between civil rights and civil liberties groups challenging the practice as racist and illegal" (Boyette & Martinez, 2013, p.1). I do…

court case in 2013 that stop and frisk is unconstitutional since its unconscious bias as well as it violating our 4th amendment, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Scheindlin explains, “Unconscious bias could help explain the otherwise puzzling fact that NYPD officers check ‘Furtive Movements’ in 50% of the stops of blacks and 35% of the stops of Hispanics, but only 10% of the stops of whites. There is…

The Supreme Court has ruled that any items other than weapons seized are violation of the person’s fourth amendment rights. Finally, the law enforcement authorities can perform search and seizure activities from a suspicious person only if they think that person is carrying illegal weapons for some criminal intentions. Q4. Describe a case where evidence was not accepted in the court due to violation of Fourth Amendment. Due to the suspicious…

Stops and frisks are some of the strategies that law-enforcement agencies use to help prevent crime and also to protect the officers and the innocent people from the dangers that could be the outcome of those crimes. Well, this is what exactly happened one afternoon in Cleveland, Ohio on 1968. Martin McFadden who has been a “police detective for thirty nine years” observed two men who were “acting strangely out on the streets of downtown Cleveland” (Criminal Procedure et al). According to…

Case Citation: Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) Parties: State of Maryland, Petitioner / Appellant Joseph Jermaine Pringle, Defendant / Appellee Case Facts: On August 7th, 1999 a Maryland police officers legally stopped a car for speeding in the early morning hours. The car was occupied by three men, to include the Defendant/Appellee Joseph Jermaine Pringle. The Officer that initiated the stop saw a large roll of cash in the glovebox while the driver was retrieving his…

However, the court in Long had ruled that if police lacked probable cause in believing that the object in plain view was contraband then conducting a further search to make the object apparent would make the plain view doctrine unwarranted with the seizure of the contraband. The Minnesota Supreme Court, thus, rejected the plain view doctrine because, first, the sense of touch was inherently unreliable compared to the sense of sight. secondly, the sense of touch was more intrusive and, thus,…

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,…

The court will likely find that Robin Kincaid is not precluded for recovery for her false imprisonment claim against Barclay’s Department Store. False imprisonment is the unlawful detention of the person of another, for any length of time, whereby such person is deprived of their personal liberty. However, a plaintiff can be barred from recovery under the Georgia state law. A store is not liable for false imprisonment if the store: (1) had reasonable cause to detain a person; (2) detains that…

Mrs. Van Bliven clearly stole her own necklace because the crime scene was not legitimate and because she needed to collect the insurance money from the necklace. First of all, the French doors were securely locked before the necklace was stolen. This evidence is important to proving Mrs. Van Bliven guilty of stealing her own necklace because no one else could have gotten in and stolen the necklace if the doors were locked. In addition, if Schmidt, Mrs. Van Bliven’s neighbor at the hotel, had…