Case Brief of Illinois v. Caballes

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”.

In Benters a reliable source told Detective J. Hastings there was an indoor marijuana growing operation at 527 Currin Road in Henderson, North Carolina, and Glenn Benters owned the property but was not living there. Benters at 662, 766 S.E.2d at 596 (2014). Hastings obtained a subpoena to look at the utility use for the property and discovered that it was indicative of a marijuana growing operation. Id. Hastings and Officer Joseph Ferguson traveled to Benters’ property and saw tools used for marijuana growing outside the premises. Id. After that observation, they conducted a knock and talk on the back door. Id. at 662, 766 S.E.2d at 596-597 (2014). After no answer, Ferguson walked to a building where music was playing and smelled

A police officer is dispatched to a call in his jurisdiction for a noise complaint. The police officer arrives hearing very loud music coming from the residence which violates a noise ordinance. The police officer knocks on the front door with no answer so he proceeds to the back door to knock when he observes what appears to be marijuana plants based on his training and experience. The police officer can seize the marijuana plants based on the Plain View Doctrine. “In Harris v. United States (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that anything a police officer sees in plain view, when the officer has a right to be where he or she is, is not the product of a search and is therefore admissible as evidence.” [1] The

Looking at the case of the State of California versus Dante Ciraolo. On September 2, 1982, Detective John Schutz of the Santa Clara Police Department received an anonymous phone complaint about someone growing marijuana in their yard. Detective Schutz, a member of the Narcotics Division, went to the location given by the caller to investigate. When he arrived at the intersection of Stebbins Avenue and Clark Avenue, he noticed the residence at 2085 Clark Avenue. From his location on the street (figure 1) Detective Schultz observed a six-foot privacy fence with an inner fence of about ten feet in height, as such, Detective Schultz could not see any evidence of any marijuana cultivation or other criminal activity.

Although Etzewieler allegedly knew Bailey was intoxicated, he still allowed Bailey to use his vehicle while he

In 1886 the US Supreme Court declared that states could not regulate commerce that went beyond their boundaries in the Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific R.R. versus Illinois case. The decision provided the basis for the formation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887. The Interstate Commerce Commission was a regulatory agency in the united states. Its purpose was to regulate railroads to ensure fair rates, to regulate rate discrimination and to regulate other aspects of common carriers, including interstate bus lines and telephone companies.

In the court case United States v. Ludwig the police took a narcotics dog through a parking lot in hopes that he would find the scent of drugs (www.loompanatics.com). Since a motorized vehicle has the ability to be driven far away and evidence can be removed, police believe that under certain circumstances they can search a car without a warrant. A dog alerted the cops by letting them know he smelled the scent of narcotics. They asked the suspect if they can search his truck. The suspect didn’t give them consent he was against the search but they still took the keys from him to search the truck. They found drugs in his trunk and a couple of large bags of marijuana. The police didn’t have a warrant nor did they have permission from the suspect to search his truck. The Supreme Court first ruled that it was unlawful to search his car without a warrant and no legit reasoning for the search. Then the court ruled that it was lawful because the officers said that the dog alerting them, were their reasoning for a warrantless search. The cops also stated in court that the reason they took the suspect’s keys is because if they have didn’t, there was a possibility that he could drive off and get rid off the drugs which would be their loss of evidence. This case shows how citizens have certain rights when it comes to their vehicles but they can still be ‘violated” in a sense.

In March 2001, a Georgia deputy attempted to pull over 19-year-old Victor Harris for driving 73 miles-per-hour in a 55 miles-per-hour zone. Instead of slowing down, Harris increased his speed, which initiated a chase at speeds exceeding 85 miles-per-hour. The deputy radioed for backup to pursue him. Deputy Timothy Scott, the petitioner in this case, joined the group of officers pursuing Harris. The officers attempted to box Harris into a shopping center parking lot, but he made a sharp turn, collided with Deputy Scott, and sped off again. Deputy Scott took over as the lead pursuit officer in the chase.

The Bradwell v Illinois took place in 1872. This was a case in which a women named Myra Bradwell applied to a law school in Illinois and was denied acceptance. Myra Bradwell had everything she needed to get accepted to the school of law she applied to, she had everything except one thing, Myra was not a male. The law school to which Myra applied to denied her acceptance simply because she was a woman! They denied Bradwell an education in law simply because practicing law wasn’t considered ladylike. They told her that law belonged to men and not women. Regardless, Myra didn’t want to be a stay home, she didn’t want to settle for just the role of a mother and a wife so she went for it. Myra appealed the court She argued that it was her God-given

The case of Horton v. Goose Creek I.S.D. held that the use of canines to sniff lockers and cars did not constitute a search. This court also ruled, however, that the use of canines to search students must only be done if there is individualized suspicion. Due to many other issues which could complicate the search, such as allergies,

Officer had probable cause to affect a traffic stop after he observed defendant following too closely. Defendant's and passenger's behavior after stop provided reasonable suspicion to expand the detention, and a positive drug dog sniff provided basis for search of vehicle.

He gets a phone call from a person identifying himself as Snitch aka ( Lloyd Williams) who tells the officer, "Trust me, Batman and Robin are planning to start a huge narcotics smuggling ring. They 've already imported more than 100 kilos of cocaine and are planning to slowly put them on the street through Drugger, using one of their erstwhile adversaries."

A person to be secure in their home “would be of little practical value if the State 's agents could stand in a home 's porch or side garden and trawl for evidence with impunity; the right to retreat would be significantly diminished if the police could enter a man 's property to observe his repose from just outside the front window” (Flordia v. Jardines, 2013). In other words what would be the point of the inside of a home holding fourth amendment protections if the outside of a home held no protections and an officer could just lurk around and look inside a home in efforts to find evidence without a warrant; with this being said, it is safe to assume that the immediate areas surrounding a home holds fourth amendment protection and is secure against a dog sniff because a sniffer dog is a dog trained to use its sense of smell to “detect substances such as explosives, illegal drugs, wildlife scat, or blood” (Wikipedia, n.d.) that can be hidden inside the home. When an officer brings a companion, in this case a dog, for the purpose of finding evidence, to the outside of person’s home, a fourth Amendment violation has occurred. The problem isn’t the dog sniff itself, the problem is when an officer trespasses into a person’s property, in which society feels they have fourth amendment protection, with a trained dog in efforts to find evidence. A dog sniff itself can be used in public places or borders for public safety, but it is

We have the court case Florida v Jardines. This court case is about Joelis Jardines and how there was suspicion that her house was being used to grow marijuana. Two detectives went to the front of Jardine’s house, and the detective dog scented the use of narcotics, particularly marijuana. The detective applied for a search warrant, which was issued. The search confirmed that marijuana was being grown inside Jardine’s home. Jardine was then arrested, and argued that the detective dog’s sniff was an impermissible search under the fourth amendment of the Constitution.

Elliott Watson was arrested for the possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute said illegal drug. Elliott Watson was stopped by Officer Timothy Johnson because of faulty mechanical problems of Elliot Watson’s vehicle, which was sputtering and stalling out, and the vehicle also fit the description of a vehicle, a sports coupe, that had earlier, was used to kidnap a three year old young girl, Wanda Jones,