Case Study: Brie V.

Was the search of Mr. Chester George’s dwelling on December 22nd, 2014 unlawful based on the theory of consent, when considering that Dedwin Shelling, a friend of Mr. George’s, consented to the search but Mr. George who was the homeowner protested that he did not give consent for the search?

INTRODUCTION: In Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the question of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was brought before the court system. The case looked at the admissibility of evidence discovered during search and seizure, in particular, as it relates to street encounters and investigations between citizens and officers of the law. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the decision of the 5th Ohio Court of Appeals. This case was of particular importance it helped establish what type of search and seizure behavior was lawful and unlawful on the part of officers, and set clear guidelines. The rulings in this case pertain to the Fourteenth Amendment (Cornell University Law School, n.d.).

In the first trial she was given, the prosecution did not provide the search warrant that was used. The prosecution also failed to state why the warrant was not submitted, In fact the prosecution avoided the subject almost entirely. There was a reasonable belief that there was never a search warrant made in the first place, However the courts convicted her guilty anyways, on the grounds that she had broken the law whether the evidence was legally seized or illegally seized. The court also determined that the evidence had not been taken from the defendant’s person by use of brutal force against the defendant. They also stated that there was no law in the state of Ohio that prevented the use of illegally seized evidence, which was also stated in wolf v Colorado, In which the court held that in a prosecution in a state for a state crime the fourteenth amendment doesn’t prevent the use of evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure. She was then sentenced to a women’s reformatory for a year, where she began to make her appeal to the Supreme Court.

A. Rule: The court case of T.L.O. also establishes a more compassionate standard of what they review as a “reasonable suspicion”, in what goes on to determine whether or not the lawfulness of the search was in the school policy or follows district policy too. To lead reasonable suspicion can sum up and equalized,when it leans toward a lessen of any chance of finding evidence of wrongful behavior in a student or individual. Of all the information Wilson acquired from the Faculty and other questionable sources from students, Marissa’s statement of the pills came from Savannah that lead was sufficient in justification of a search upon Savannah’s backpack. In addition the Savannah’s outer clothing. Savannah reasoning could be possibly was reckoning of carrying the tylenol. The disgraceful strip search and seizure that ultimately exposed her private areas to some degree.The content of this belief failed to match the degree of intrusiveness she was getting from the school. Nothing was led to suggested the amount and quantity of the drugs, could appeal to pose a real danger to any of the students or to that of Savannah in carrying pills in her underwear or in bra.School officials are allowed and can search any students belongings and lockers. They are entitled to qualified immunity where it clearly states and establishes as qualified immunity and established

In the case of Fare v. Michael C., the police arrested the sixteen-year-old Michael C. under the suspicion of murder, and he was transported to the police station for a custodial interrogation (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Furthermore, before the interrogation began Michael C. was advised of his Miranda Rights, and Michael C. specifically asked to consult his probation officer, and not a lawyer (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Consequently, the police refused to allow Michael C. to speak with his state probation officer, and they continued to question him about the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Michael C. continued to answer the investigator’s questions and he drew sketches, which ultimately implicated him in the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Now that we understand the general facts of the case, let us examine the key facts and issues, which lead to the Supreme Court’s decision.

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

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.

The facts of the case was the police officers came to Ms. Dollree Mapp home on May 23, 1957, on the suspicion that she was harboring a bomb suspect and illegal betting equipment. The police officers ask to enter her home, but she refused them entry into her home without a search warrant. The officers came back with a piece of paper, then proceeded to break into Ms. Mapp home to search for bomb suspect, but no suspect was found, but during the search officers found "lewd and lascivious" books; which was prohibited by Ohio state law to have any obscene material in your possession. It would later found out that it was an illegal search and seizure because the paper that the officer held was not a search warrant. Ms. Mapp was arrested, prosecuted, found guilty and sentenced for possession of obscene materials. Ms. Mapp tried to appeal the decision on the case, the Ohio Supreme Court recognized the unlawfulness of the search, but upheld the conviction on the grounds established by the Supreme Court decision on Wolf v.

The district court’s holding that allowing ambiguity to defeat apparent authority would unreasonably burden police officers by forcing them to clarify the consenter’s authority over every container within the area they were permitted to search should be upheld as it is one that is supported by persuasive precedent from a sister circuit of this Court. See United States v. Melgar, 227 F.3d 1038, 1042 (7th Cir. 2000). In Melgar, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit uses Supreme Court precedent to support the position on ambiguous apparent authority stated above. See id. (citing Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999)). The Seventh Circuit states the Supreme

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

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

Savana sued her school district, claiming unreasonable search and seizure, and her case went all the way to the Supreme Court(Amy E. Feldman).”School Officers claimed that Ms.Redding was holding Ibuprofen on school grounds. She was called to the office following another student who confessed that she was receiving pills from Ms.Redding. Another student’s confession is not reliable enough for a search or a seizure. The student who was called down has had previous records of drug usage, therefore the probability of her telling a lie was very high at this point.”In the case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding—25 years after the T.L.O. case—the Supreme Court found that Savana’s rights had, in fact, been violated and stated that a search by a school must not be "excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.(Amy E. Feldman).” The officers at the school claimed Ms.Reddings to be possessing IBuprofen.A probable cause would be to search her purse or backpack, which was the initial search. Nevertheless, subsequently, the school nurse checked her body from her head to her toe, till the only thing covering her, was her underwear.After finding

Ms. Moss your findings are challenging. When law enforcement officers violate an individual’s constitutional rights according to the Fourth Amendment, and a search or seizure is labeled unlawful, any evidence obtained from the search or seizure will be dismissible from the criminal case against the person whose rights were violated. The father removed evidence from a crime scene and was instructed by law enforcement to replace it. The officer could have utilized probable cause and special circumstances to justify the search without a warrant “If” the evidence was not tampered with. As a result, the officers should have obtained a search warrant for further investigation since the evidence had been removed and the physical appearance of the

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.

There are many tangible circumstances that tend to prove or disprove some facts in all criminal or civil cases. Under rule 41(b) “A warrant may be issued under this rule to search for and seize any (1) property that constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offenses; or (2) contraband, the fruits of a crime, or things otherwise criminally possessed; or (3) property designed or intended for use or which is or has been used as the means of committing a criminal offense; or (4) person for whose arrest there is probable cause, or who is unlawfully restrained” (John N. Ferdico, 1999). Evidence is one of the single most important pieces of a criminal trial. It is used to determine a defendant’s guilt or innocence.