Illinois V. Gates Case Digest

On 11/6/2017 at 1400 hours, I Officer Graves, responded to 735 E Haggard Ave Elon, NC 27244 in reference to an assist. Upon arrival Detective Turney, Lieutenant Sweat, and Officer Peters were at apartment K executing a search warrant. I was requested to remain outside of the residence at the front door. At 1426 hours Captain B. Tillotson entered the residence and left at 1441 hours. At hours Officer Peters released Jacy Loshin from the premises after issuing a citation. At 1455 hours Officer Chavis entered the residence and remained until the search warrant execution was completed at 1530 hours, when all remaining officers cleared.

The Illinois trial court denied motion to suppress, finding the gun was recovered during a lawful stop and frisk. The Illinois Appellate Court reversed Wardlow 's conviction, concluding that the gun should have been suppressed because Officer Nolan did not have reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigative stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968). 287 Ill. App. 3d 367, 678 N. E. 2d 65 (1997). The Illinois Supreme Court agreed. 183 Ill. 2d 306, 701 N. E. 2d 484 (1998). While rejecting the Appellate Court 's conclusion

Parties: Parminder Kaur & Amanjit Kaur (Petitioners) v. New York State Urban Development Corporation (Respondent)

When a person takes steps toward the commission of a crime and has a specific intent to commit the crime, but for unforeseen reasons is unable to complete the crime the person has committed the crime of Attempt (Jirard, 2009). In the case of the State of Indiana versus Donald J. Haines, emergency personnel including two police officers [Dennis and Hayworth] along with emergency medical technicians [Garvey and Robinson] responded to Mr. Haines’s apartment for a report of a possible suicide that just occurred. When officers Dennis and Hayworth arrived at Haines’s apartment they discovered him lying face down in a pool of blood. Officer Dennis noticed that both of Haines’s wrists were cut and were bleeding. When Haines heard the paramedics he stood up, and began screaming at Dennis that he has AIDS and that he should be left to die. Dennis advised Haines that he was there to help him, and Haines told Dennis that he wanted to fuck him so that he could give him AIDS. Haines than told Dennis that he was going to utilize his wounds to spray blood on him, and began to jerk back and forth causing his infected blood to get into Dennis’ mouth and eyes. Haines told Dennis that he could not deal with having AIDS, but that he was going to make him deal with it.

Patricia’s information should be evaluated as confidential and reliable because she is the ex-girlfriend of Defendant and has already given DPD reliable information in the past that led to Defendant being charged with possession of cocaine. This shows that there is a basis of knowledge that Patricia used when supplying the information, which is accordance with the totality of circumstances test. Id. at 664, 766 S.E.2d at 598 (2014). Then admitting she was connected to burning down Defendant’s camper and that she wanted justice against Defendant for kidnapping her nephew are statements against

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

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

The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important constitutional protections; however, several procedural issues may arise. As seen in this case, the validity of the search warrant was questioned as well as the extent of the protection afforded. A search may be illegal even if a search warrant was issued; probable cause is

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.

One of the many freedoms we enjoy, as Americans is the right that protects us from unreasonable search and seizures; as well as the necessity for a search warrant when law enforcement wishes to search someone’s property. This right is known as the Fourth Amendment and it contains two clauses: the first one is the reasonableness clause, which states that we are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. The second part is the warrant clause, which states that a warrant must be issued upon the finding of probable cause. It must then be supported by an affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and what us intending to be found.

Facts: On October 13, 2005, in Lexington, Kentucky police officers set up a sting operation to catch a well-known drug dealer. They watched as the suspect made a sale of crack cocaine to a person and walked off as if this is a normal thing. The suspect was Mr. Hollis King, and he was hiding out in an apartment complex with some of his friends. The police watched as the suspect at hand made a transaction with someone selling those drugs. The officers then radioed out that the suspect was on the move and moving towards the entryway of an apartment building. The Lexington Police entered the apartment

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."

Several ways that The Grange battle these injustices was through " cooperation with others, like western businessmen whose interests railroads also hurt, political action " (429). The Granger laws were passed in several states following pressure from the farmers and their new partners in the western business world. These laws " set maximum rates that railroads and elevators operating within their borders. The response from the railroads and the grain elevator owners was neither passive nor subtle. They challenged the rules and in the case of Munn vs. Illinois were defeated and the rights of states to regulate rates was upheld.

A search is defined as the exploration or examination of an individual’s house, premises, or person, to discover things or items that may be used by the government for evidence in a criminal prosecution. In order to have a lawful search a search warrant is required but before a search warrant is issued, it must first, meet four criteria. As stated in the constitution for a warrant to be issued, a search must be based on probable cause. The second requirement is that it must be supported by an oath or affirmation. The third requirement for a search warrant is that it must be signed by a neutral and detached magistrate. In addition to the neutrality requirement, the magistrate must also be able to independently make a determination of probable

In Utah a Detective by the name of Douglas Fackrell received a tip of the whereabouts of drug activity taking place. Fackrell over a course of some days watched the house, where he concluded that there was in fact suspicious drug activity taking place. The man who exited the house went by the name of Strieff, who the detective decided to stop and question. By taking Streiff's I.D., Fackrell discovered a traffic warrant meant for Strieff. Under this warrant, the detective then arrested Strieff, and then conducted a search on Strieff due to the arrest. Due to this search, Fackrell found meth and a drug pipe inside