Bond V. Bond Case Summary

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

Case Procedural History: Roy Caballes tried to suppress the drugs seized in the stop by claiming that the state troopers did not have probable cause to search his vehicle. The trial judge denied the motion to suppress the seized marijuana. The trial judge held that the use of the drug dog did not prolong the duration

In the case of Illinois vs. Wardlow, many factors contributed to Wardlow’s arrest. Starting with the facts of the case, on September 9, 1995 Sam Wardlow fled after seeing police vehicles covering an area in Chicago where it was known to have high drug trafficking. Two police officers spotted Wardlow, Officers Nolan and Officer Harvey, and once Officer Nolan caught up with Mr. Wardlow, Officer Nolan proceeded to conduct a pat-down search of only the outer layer of clothing, or a “Terry Stop.” Officer Nolan was well aware that in this area, there was almost always a weapon on a suspect that was involved with some type of drug transaction. After conducting the frisk, Officer Nolan squeezed the opaque colored bag that Mr. Wardlow was

If I had been a justice on the Supreme Court, I would have to say that the major problem with this case is that Albert Leon should not use the fourth amendment as a way to help him in this particular case because I feel that the police officers did have enough evidence and support to issue a search warrant. The police officers were just trying to do their job and used a search warrant to Albert Leon’s house, which they found a large amount of illegal drugs. I would have to say that would have been enough evidence for me to see that Leon should go to jail and be punished for even having illegal drugs in his possession. The police officers had done more investigation and found out that Leon has been arrested before in 1980. Leon’s lawyer felt

Mr. Aaron Jackson was placed under arrest and charged with illegal possession of the firearm. It was later discovered that the state of Newtown, a place located near New Setonia and where Mr. Jackson lives, had a similar statute. This statute stated the trucks defined in the New Setonia’s law is actually commercial vehicles. Mr. Jackson asked for a motion to suppress the evidence seized from the car. First, the trial court denied this motion, and Mr. Jackson pleaded guilty. Mr. Jackson appealed for a motion to suppress once again, which was denied because it was stated how Officer Raymond’s initial stop was reasonable under the New Setonia law. When Mr. Jackson made yet another appeal, the Court of Appeals decided to hear the case. Now, the question lingering is whether Officer Raymond stopping the Defendant for violating the New Setonia’s statute is

Teagle 170 P.3d 266 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007), defendant Teagle was pulled over after being observed speeding down the highway. When the officer approached the vehicle, he noticed two cellular phones on the dashboard, an open container of liquor, fast-food wrappers, a box of cookies, a map, and luggage and clothing in the backseat. The officer gave the defendant a warning and then asked him if there was any contraband in the vehicle or whether there was a chance anyone else could have placed any contraband in the vehicle. Although the defendant answered in the negative, the officer returned to his patrol vehicle and asked if there was a canine unit available. There was not and so the officer told the defendant that he was free to leave. Shortly afterwards, the officer saw the defendant speeding once again down the road. The officer proceeded to pull him over and gave him another warning. The officer again asked him if he could search the vehicle and the defendant answered in the affirmative. The officer called a canine unit which arrived an hour later. The canine, in proceeding to do an exterior sniff, circled around to the trunk. The officers then opened the trunk to find 338 pounds of marijuana, a can of air freshener under the driver’s seat and several toilet bowl sanitizers in the compartment ofthe vehicle as well as the trunk. These were all indicative of an attempt to mask the smell of marijuana. At trial, the defendant argued that he had taken his vehicle to a repair shop, implying that someone else had placed the drugs in the car. The court found that there was enough evidence, including the large amount of drugs in the trunk of the vehicle, the air freshener, and the inconsistent statements to determine that the defendant had sufficient knowledge of the marijuana in the

Dickerson, Timothy Dickerson was seen in a drug known area. An officer ordered a pat down to investigate. When searching for weapons, the officer felt a small lump in Dickerson’s pocket. Without further evidence, the officer reached into his pocket and found a bag of cocaine. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the cocaine in this case was inadmissible as evidence even though the Court held that officers were allowed to assume that an object was contraband through touch. It was stated that, “If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect's privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer's search for weapons; if the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be justified by the same practical considerations that inhere in the plain-view

This evidence of drug dealing was turned over to the police and the police asked TLO’s mother to bring her to the police station for further questioning, which resulted in her confession of selling marijuana at the school. In the Supreme Court, TLO lost to New Jersey 6-3. The question brought to the court in this case was, did Choplick’s search violated TLO’s Fourth Amendment, and did the exclusionary rule apply to the search.

Morris, 331 N.W.2d 48, 53 (N.D. 1983)); Florida v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 2012) (discussing the difference between actual and constructive possession); Brent v. State, 957 N.E.2d 648, 648, 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (holding that the defendant did not have actual or constructive possession of a bag of drugs located on the ground, beside a vehicle, that the defendant was in); Hunter v. Commonwealth, 690 S.E.2d 792, 794, 799 (Va. 2010) (holding that the evidence would have supported a charge of constructive possession of a firearm when the defendant/passenger stated that the gun located in the driver’s glovebox was his, but he was not charged with that crime); Martinez v. State, 152 P.3d 1237, 1243 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the defendant’s case must be reversed because he was not aware of the required mental state to plead guilty to constructive possession); Campbell v. People, 73 P.3d 11, 14 (Colo. 2003) (holding that the State must prove that the accused had actual or constructive possession of the drug); Washington v. McPherson, 46 P.3d 284, 291 (Wash. 2002) (holding that the defendant had actual possession of drugs found in another person’s pocket under the accomplice liability theory); Sims v. Alabama, 733 So. 2d 926, 929 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998) (holding that the defendant had actual possession of the drugs located under the driver’s seat of a vehicle he

Facts: August 7, 1999, a car occupied by three men, Donte Partlow (driver and owner of vehicle) accused Pringle (front seat passenger), and Otis Smith riding in the back seat, were ultimately pulled over by a police officer for driving over the speed limit. Upon the officer approaching the vehicle, he asked to see Partlow’s license and registration, and as the defendant opened his glovebox, a fairly large sum of money was exposed in the amount of $763. The officer then returned to his patrol car to check Parlow’s license to ensure he had no warrants of anything outstanding, Partlow came out clear, so he issued Partlow a verbal warning. Upon arrival of the second officer he asked if they minded he search the vehicle, Partlow had no issues and agreed to the search. The police not only found the $763 in the glove compartment but also five glassine Baggies of cocaine stashed behind the backseat armrest. The officers questioned the men as to who the cash and drugs belong too, none of them took ownership, the officers advised them that if no one claim the drugs and cash as theirs, they all would be arrested and charged. So, all three were arrested and taken to jail. Later on, in the morning Pringle decided he would waived his Miranda rights, then made a full verbal and written admission that the cash and drugs were his

In United States v. Drayton, Christopher Drayton and Clifton Brown were traveling on a public bus, when police officers boarded the bus as part of a routine interdiction effort. As one of the officers walked through the bus, he did not inform the passengers of their rights to refuse or cooperate. As Drayton and Brown were asked by officers to provide ID, and officers declared that they were searching for drugs and weapons and asked if they could search their bags, and person. Brown agreed and a pat-down revealed hard objects similar to drug packages in both thigh areas. When Drayton agreed, a pat-down revealed similar objects. Both were arrested, and the District Court determined that the police conduct was not coercive and Drayton and Brown's

Under the 4th Amendment of the United States, citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. One exception is through consent to the search. Petitioner Fallsbauer will argue that the consent his mother gave was ambiguous, and because his mother’s consent was ambiguous the consent was not valid and therefore the police had a legal duty to clarify the ambiguity. Specifically, the officers needed to clarify the ambiguity of her consent regarding searching in the shoe box where the police officers found the tablets later discovered to be Taz. Petitioner will argue that the case of U.S. v. Whitfield is analogous to and controlling in his case. In Whitfield, the defendant had been accused of theft, and police officers came to search the residence of the defendant. The court ruled that the mother had not told police officers whether she had anything to do in the 29 year old defendant’s bedroom. They had no reason to know and therefore they could not take her consent. The area of the house to be searched was not under her authority. The court said that ownership of the house does not imply common authority. “A landlord-tenant type of arrangement between a

The case that was chosen by this learner for discussion was Utah v. Strieff. The case deals with Mr. Strieff who was unconstitutionally stopped by the police, which led to a back ground check that showed that there was an outstanding arrest warrant on a minor offense (ACLU, 2016, para. 1). The officer decided to search Mr. Strieff’s vehicle, where the officer discovered drugs, Mr. Strieff was then arrested.

Facts: On August22, 2009, While David Leon Riley was driving, the police officer stopped him because he noticed that Riley is driving with an expired registration tags. At the same time, the police officer found that Riley’s license is suspended. Which led the officer to seize his car in order to turn it to the department policy. However, while passing through the process of impounding the car another police officer was searching in Riley’s car and suddenly found two handguns under the hood. As a result, Riley was arrested. After searching about Riley occurrence and situation, an officer found that Riley has some items that are related to a gangs and bloods the officer took Riley’s cell phone “a smart phone” from his pocket and search inside the phone, the officer found picture of Riley in front of a car that was used in a crime scene “shooting”, so based on that Riley was charged that he involved in that crime. However, Riley restrained The State Alleged which is an enhanced sentence according to the crimes the cave been committed to Riley, he restrained that because the officer violets Fourth Amendment which is prohibiting searching or seizing without a warrant. Finally, the trail court

Rodney Gant was arrested by Arizona state police for driving under a suspended license. After the defendant was handcuffed and placed inside the patrol car, the officers began searching the defendant’s vehicle. Upon searching the vehicle, officers located a hand gun and also a plastic bag of cocaine. During trial, the defense requested to suppress the evidence, as it was uncovered through a search in violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The motion to suppress the evidence was denied, and the defendant was charged with possession of an illegal substance. (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2009)