3-1 Discussion

.pdf

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

375

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by sandaddict26

What defenses, if any, were asserted in these cases? Hello Class, After reviewing the cases in this prompt, I was able to see that there are two main differences between how the suspects asserted their defense when at trial. In the case of Georgie v Randolph, Mr. Randolph’s spouse reported to police that Randolph was a cocaine user and there was drugs in the house, after police responded for a child custody disagreement. While police spoke with the couple outside the home police officer asked if they could search the home after it was revealed that drugs were inside the house. Mr Randolph denied the request while Mrs. Randolph agreed and said they could search the home. During the search, police found drug paraphernalia and Mr. Randolph was arrested. During his trial his defense team moved to suppress the evidence due to unlawful search and seizure because Mr. Randolph had denied the officers from searching his home, while the prosecution motioned that his wife agreeing to the search was sufficient for the officers to enter the house and begin a search. At trial court, the judge sided with the prosecution and Mr. Randolph was convicted. Mr. Randolph alter appealed his case to the appellate court where it was overturned and again confirmed by the Georgia Supreme Court, which ruled that a search is unconstitutional if both parties are present and one resident denies the request to search, and the other resident agrees to the search. Mr. Randolph ended up winning his case, as it was dismissed due to unlawful search and seizure. In the case of Fernandez v. California the same cannot be said when it came to the search and seizure. Police responded to a call about a gang related robbery and assault with witnesses to saw the suspect run into a nearby apartment building, when officers arrived to the apartment they could here scream through the door. When they knocked on the door, a women came out bloodied and bruised, stating that she had been in a fight. The suspect later exited the apartment, later identified as Mr. Fernandez and immediately placed him under arrest for the suspicion that he was the one who attacked the women. The officers then asked if they could sweep the apartment to which Mr. Fernandez said they had no right to enter the apartment. Officers then transported Mr. Fernandez to the police officer and later returned to the apartment and asked the women if they could search the apartment to which she agreed. While conducting the search, officers discovered gang related items that were used in the assault and robbery, while also recovering a sawed off shotgun with the help of his 4 year-old son showing the officers where it was located. Mr. Fernandez defense argued that he denied officers from conducting a search of the home at initial contact and illegally conducted the search and seizure. At trial court, the Fernandez legal team sought to have the evidence suppress but was denied and he was convicted of the crime. His case went through the appeal process where it was later affirmed all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. How did these cases impact law enforcement and prosecutors? These cases help law enforcement and prosecutor by determining the intent of the law and by providing a lawful reason behind every search and seizure. It helps by identifying whether a co- occupant can give consent to law enforcement of searches. The main difference between the two

cases is when authorization was actually given. If both parties are present and one gives consent while the other does not, then law enforcement is not permitted to search the residence. In the event that only one resident is available to give consent and they have lawful ownership and access to the premises then they can consent to the warrantless search without the other resident present. Do you agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions? I do agree with the Supreme Courts decision in these two cases. If both parties are present and one does not agree that a search can be conducted, then absolutely the search would be unconstitutional. Now in the event that only one resident is present and gives consent, I agree that this absolutely merit to the search and seizure of evidence found. Now this does seem to leave some grey area when we talk about Fernandez v. California because although officers were denied the first time, they later returned to try again when they knew Mr. Fernandez was in jail and would not be able to consent to the search. Although this may be looked at as an illegal search and seizure by some, think about it from another point of view and if they arrived to the apartment and Fernandez was not there initially. The officer would have no knowledge that he was also a resident and would have asked Roxanne again to enter the apartment to conduct a search to which she most likely would have agreed. If the Supreme Courts decision was different, almost ever case brought to trail would argue that the search conducted was illegal and officers would then be required to correctly identify every occupant of a residence and no longer rely on the word of the person granting the consent to search. I feel that the exigent clause circumstance for preservation of evidence would be utilized more frequently if this was the case (Exigent circumstances). Were these decisions consistent with each other? How does consistency in legal decisions positively and negatively impact law-enforcement officers and attorneys? I do believe that the decisions in this case were consistent based on the circumstances of each case. Both cases came down the determination whether or not a suspect was present in the moment the question was asked to conduct a search. In the end, if there is any question that there may be a violation of rights in a case, a warrant for a search may be requested based on the evidence currently available, especially when someone witnesses a crime occur and where the individual went. This also brings me back to exigent circumstance and preserving any evidence that someone may try and destroy following the commission of a crime (Exigent circumstances). References Fernandez v. California. (n.d.). Oyez . Retrieved January 25, 2024, from https://www.oyez.org/ cases/2013/12-7822 Georgia v. Randolph. (n.d.). Oyez . Retrieved January 25, 2024, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/ 2005/04-1067

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help