Aguilar Vs Texas Case Study

After the Supreme Court review the Wong Sun v United States case, the Supreme Court found that “Wong Sun statement could not be used to corroborate the second defendant’s police statement and the second defendant’s statement could not corroborate Wong Sun’s statement because neither statement was made during the existence of drug conspiracy” (Ingram p.89). Therefore, the Court conclude that the defendants of Wong Sun v United States case deserved a “new trial because there remained no admissible evidence against them” (Ingram

Over time, technology has impacted the police and other law enforcement agencies with new devices for gathering evidence. These new tools have caused constitutional questions to surface. One particular case in Oregon of an individual (DLK) aroused such question. DLK was suspected of growing marijuana inside of his home. Agents used a thermal imager to scan DLK’s residence form the outside. The results indicated heat, just like the kind that is generated by special lights used for growing marijuana indoors. Constructed by the scan, a judge issued a search warrant. A warrant – a legal paper authorizing a search – cannot be issued unless there is

On November 25, 1999, The Coast Guard rescued 5 year old Elian Gonzalez from the Atlantic Ocean. Elian was found on an inner tube clinging to life with dehydration and hypothermia. His mother, Elisabeth Brotons, along with several others drowned on their trip from Cuba. The INS placed Plaintiff with his uncle, Lazaro Gonzalez, who lives in Miami, Florida. On November 27, 1999, Plaintiff's father, Juan Gonzalez, sent a letter to the Cuban government requesting that his son be in Cuba. The letter stated that the Plaintiff was taken out of Cuba without his father’s consent. On November 29, 1999, Lazaro Gonzalez signed and submitted an application for asylum to the INS on behalf of Elian. Shortly after, another application was submitted with Elian’s signature.

The questions presented to the Supreme Court in Raich v. Gonzales (2005) are whether the Commerce Clause affords Congress the power to ban the growth, use, and sale of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act and whether it can enforce that act against ill people whose doctors have prescribed medical marijuana as a remedy. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice John Paul Stevens employed Justice Stephen Breyer’s strand of pragmatism to answer those questions. The premise of Breyer’s approach is that the Constitution enshrines values and principles, but it grants judges the flexibility to apply those principles to changing circumstances (Yale 11). Hence, pragmatist judges embrace constitutional

Another case that establishes the premise for determining the validity of the search includes United States v. Matlock. The question before the Court in Matlock was whether the third party's consent for the police to search the defendant's house was "legally sufficient" to render the evidence admissible at trial. Police officers arrested the defendant in his front yard, but did not request his permission to search the house. Instead, some of the police officers approached the house and requested permission to search from Mrs. Graff, who lived in the house with defendant. Mrs. Graff consented to the search and the officers found nearly $5,000 in cash in a closet. Both the district court and the court of appeals excluded the evidence from the trial, finding that Mrs. Graff did not have the authority to consent to the search. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to settle this evidentiary issue. Justice White, for the Court, espoused the

The United States Constitution affords all people certain rights. The Fifth Amendment states that we have the right against self incrimination. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search or seizure. People have the right to confront witnesses and accusers. Nothing can change these rights unless the U.S. constitutions were to be rewritten and that is not likely to happen. In this paper we will be examining the Fourth Amendment, learning the requirements for obtaining a search warrant, defining probable cause, describing when search and seizure does not require a warrant. We will also explain the rationale for allowing warrantless searches, examine the persuasiveness of these reasons, and determine if probable cause is always

“According to estimates from the 2013 ACS, the U.S. immigrant population stood at more than 41.3 million, or 13 percent, of the total U.S. population of 316.1 million. Between 2012 and 2013, the foreign-born population increased by about 523,000, or 1.3 percent. U.S. immigrants and their U.S.-born children now number approximately 80 million persons, or one-quarter of the overall U.S. population.”People for in other countries that come to America are known as immigrants. They can be categorized as illegal or legal immigrants. Recently there has been a case (Texas v. United States) which corresponds with immigration in the United States of America. Now, it is seen as inhumane to break up families in the United sates, It’s illegal for states to sue the U.S., and the general public does not need time to react to the new program in motion.

Factual History: In Los Angeles, California during the month of October and year of 2009, Abel Lopez was attacked and robbed by a man with a knife, he later identified as Walter Fernandez. During the confrontation between Lopez and Fernandez, Fernandez informed Lopez the territory in which Lopez was ruled by the “Drifters” After Lopez placed a call to 911, a few minutes after the attack, police and paramedics arrived on the scene. Two Los Angeles police officers, Detective Clark and Officer Cirrito, drove to a nearby alley that was often contained members of the Drifters gang. Here in the ally, a witnesses told them that the suspect was in an apartment in a house located off the

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

Facts: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and states that an officer to have both probable cause and a search warrant in order to search a person or their property. There are several exceptions to this requirement. One exception to this is when an officer makes an arrest; the officer can search an arrestee and the area within his immediate control without first obtaining a search warrant. This case brings forth the extent of an officer’s power in searching an arrestee’s vehicle after he has been arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car. On August 25, 1999, the police responded to an anonymous tip of drug activity at a particular residence. When they arrived on scene, Rodney Gant answered the door

The knock-and-announce warrant, signed by Municipal Judge Andrew Hyde, was predicated by intelligence of drug trafficking out of the home, said Sheriff Timothy W. Zimmerly, noting the search warrant extended not

The two-pronged test was developed to “determine whether that information demonstrated probable cause” (Ingram p.172) where the first part of the test, “an informant’s veracity and reliability had to be determined prior to finding that the informant’s information supplied probable cause” (Ingram p.173) In this part of the test the police had to prove that the informant was a believable person” (Ingram p.173), such as having a history of “giving a reliable and truthful information to the police in the past, and might even implicated himself or herself in a crime just to prove to the police that he or she is telling the truth. The reliability of certain personalities as an informant such as the “local priest, mayor and another police officer

Hernandez V. Texas is based in the 6th amendment, “guarantees a defendant a right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions”. This case is a very well-known because there was too much of discrimination towards Hispanics. Pedro Hernandez is a resident at Edna, Texas, a Mexican guy who was accused of convicting the murder of Joe Espinosa who was also a resident of the same area. Hernandez was found guilty by an all-white jury going all the way to Supreme Court. Their lawyers argue that it wasn’t fair for them not having a Mexican American as a jury and there was only Americans, because in that way they would take advantage of a Mexican American to do whatever they wanted to do with him. In the 1950’s was when this case occurred and also there was a harsh discrimination to Mexican Americans from the white people at the United States. Mexicans and African Americans were just a “waste of time” for the white people, that’s how the white people thought about them. History, discrimination and how did this issue impact police, court, and corrections are essential things that will be cover.

The Aguilar-Spinelli test states that a magistrate must be informed of the reasons to support the conclusion that such an informant is reliable and credible. The magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information which also went by the name of the “two-prong” test. The totality of circumstances cancelled out the “two-prong” test with the rules suggests that there is no single deciding factor, that one must consider all the facts, the context, and conclude from the whole picture whether there is probable cause, or whether an alleged detention is really a detention, or whether a citizen acted under

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent