Illinois V. Gates 462 Us 213 Summary

Johnson further maintains that the circuit court erred by admitting documents that were not properly authenticated. The State counters that “the appearance and contents of each of the documents contained sufficient information from which the factfinder could have reasonably concluded that the document was what the State purported it to be.” We hold that the documents admitted against Johnson were properly authenticated.

Case Facts: Roy Caballes was stopped for speeding by an Illinois state trooper Daniel Gillette. During the traffic stop another state trooper Craig Graham of the Illinois State Police Drug Interdiction Team, overheard the stop on the radio and showed up to the scene with a narcotics detection dog. While the first trooper was writing Roy Caballes a warning ticket for speeding the second trooper walked around Roy’s car with the narcotics detection dog. The dog alerted that it had detected narcotics at the rear end of the car which subsequently led to the state troopers searching the trunk of the car. Upon searching the trunk of the car the state troopers found a large quantity of marijuana which consequently led to the arrest of Roy Caballes. The entire incident lasted no longer than 10 minutes. Roy Caballes was convicted of a narcotics offence and was sentenced to 12 years in prison and ordered to pay a $256,136 fine.

In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.

Moreover, in some cases, yes, the police and a few government officials do sometimes misuse the reasonable suspicion and probable cause, however, in most cases it is all sorted out by the time it reaches court. That being said, one of the more disturbing flaws in this article is that the reader is obtaining a misconception of the definitions of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. For instance, there is a distinctive difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause. To better explain, reasonable suspicion is more of a feeling officers will get, such as sensible, rational or justifiable (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 204). In contrast, probable cause is used when someone, usually of the law enforcement variety, has a sound belief, supported by evidences and circumstances, that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 205). This article in question, did not explain the differences and even misused the terms reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and finally, only referenced one instance where an officer unjustly used probable cause. The officer in question received an anonymous tip in regards to a crime being committed, which legal gave

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

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."

In May of 1983 the Bloomingdale Police Department receives and anonymous letter about the activities of Lance and Sue Gates and their involvement in drug trafficking .The contents of the letter are as follows:

Brie’s authority to consent to the search of the shoebox was not ambiguous because the searching officers’ reliance on clear indications of her mutual use of the shoebox was reasonable. Additionally, even if this Court was to find Ms. Brie’s apparent authority was ambiguous, this Court must find that such ambiguity does not defeat the searching officers’ reasonable beliefs in her authority as finding otherwise would impose an unreasonable burden on police officers that would cause them to be unable to effectively fulfill their duties. Second, this court must find the government presented sufficient evidence to prove the scienter element in Mr. Brie’s case because statements made by Mr. Brie and one of his customers to the police prove he had the requisite knowledge of the substance he was dealing with and finding to the contrary would make it unreasonable difficult for prosecutors to prove the scienter element in future analogue drug

The case went all the way to the supreme court. The supreme court ruled in favor of Mapp’s five to three stating that the evidence that was withheld was found during an unlawful search and could not be used as evidence the trial at a state level nor a supreme court level.

On 08/29/2016, at approximately 2000 hours, your Affiant observed a male staggering while walking westbound on the 200 Block of East Centre Street. Your Affiant and Officer Pastucka made contact with the male at the intersection of Centre and Lehigh Streets where he was asked if everything was alright. He replied he was fine and was walking home. Officers immediately detected a low, slow raspy speech, a dry mouth, ptosis, and noticed the male's pupils were constricted which had little to no reaction to light. The male was questioned if he had recently used any medication or drugs. He denied using any medication or drugs and advised he is not prescribed or taking any medication. The male was questioned specifically about the recent use of heroin or an opiate to which he again said he is not using

The second issue is whether officer Wilson had probable cause to search the passenger seat and trunk of David’s automobile incident to arrest. For the court to rule in favor of suppressing the evidence found, we must apply the two prongs of the Gant rule.

5. No. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.

Understanding the connections between reason, evidence, and warrants are based on the idea that there must be sources that you make a belief, evidence that shows your belief is true, and warrants that are found as your point of references where your information came from. Even in the academic world it is

On the facts of the case, the Court of Appeal was not satisfied that the officer was an agent provocateur and, as the evidence showed that the officer had played a lesser role in planning of the offence and had used no persuasion against the accused, it was held that the evidence had been rightly admitted. This brings us to the idea that the court has at most times refused to think the police officers have gone beyond what they are required to do. The court in a way has made it seem like the accused has "committed the act as a result of their inherent 'criminal instincts ' rather than as a result of the actions of the police. " A classic case of R v Christou involved a test which the court applied. The test seemed to be concerned with whether or not the defendants had voluntarily applied themselves to the trick by the police also known as agents provocateurs. This test was applied in three subsequent Court of Appeal decisions. Following these cases, it appeared questionable as to whether circumstances of entrapment would ever give rise to an obligation to exclude evidence. As Geoffrey Roberson states, "the proper application of this test is highly questionable, because there was no basis for suspecting that the 'criminals ' would have committed the act in question had the operation not been put in place". R v Looseley became the leading case of entrapment. The case brought together the different strands of

A COUNTY DETECTIVE INTERVIEWED A CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT (CI) AND LEARNED THAT THE DEFENDANT WOULD BE RECEIVING APPROXIMATELY 20 GRAMS OF BATH SALTS THAT WOULD BE SENT TO HIS POST OFFICE BOX AT 14TH STREET IN ERIE, PA. THE BUREAU OF NARCOTICS WORKED WITH A POSTAL INSPECTOR AND OTHERS, AND IT WAS LEARNED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED SEVERAL PACKAGES AT HIS POST BOX. ON 09/22/16, A PACKAGE ARRIVED AT THE POST OFFICE ADDRESSED TO MICHAEL BAXTER, P.O. BOX 1780, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ERIE, PA 16512 WHICH HAD A RETURN ADDRESS ORIGONATING FROM HONG KONG. THE PACKAGE CONTAINED A SEALED FOIL PACKAGE CONTAINING BATH SALTS, WHICH FIELD TESTED POSITIVE. ON 09/25/16, THE NARCOTICS OFFICER OBTAINED A SEARCH WARRANT. ON 09/26/16, THE