Installing A Gps Tracking Device

As well as without the defendants’ knowledge, the tracker installed in the vehicle for 28 days. “The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in U.S. vs. Jones to determine whether the police had violated Antoine Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights when they attached a GPS to his car without a warrant and tracked his movements.” (Andrew)

The United States Court of appeals ruled that the suppressed evidence is purely impeaching evidence and no defense request has been made, the suppressed evidence is material only if its introduction probably would have resulted in acquittal. Given a minor role of Phillips' testimony and the limited impact that Phelps statement had on the jury's assessment of Phillips credibility, Maddox could not demonstrate that so the evidence probably would have resulted in an acquittal. Also, the evidence was immaterial under United States V.Blasco; the defendant filed a joint motion to suppress all physical evidence gathered by the officers and any statements made by the defendant. The magistrate found that the defendant did not have to raise a fourth amendment challenge and its suppression did not violate his (Maddox’s) due process right. For ongoing reasons, the district court's dismissal of Maddox's habeas petition was affirmed.

Specialized cameras now allow crime techs to capture entire crime scenes on video for later reference. Therefore, GPS devices and forensic science have also been improved by technology and have enhanced law enforcement organizations’ ability to function.

Evidence of Mr Thomas’ involvement in the sale of illegal drugs were being monitored by undercover police. Then, on 8 January 2015, a search warrant enabled police to enter Mr Thomas’ premises in which they found a glass pipe, scales, $1000 in cash, a mobile phone, small Ziploc bags and the drug, crystal methamphetamine. All these instruments indicated Mr Thomas was a supplier and user of the dangerous and illegal drug.

“During the investigation, officers recovered more than 20 firearms, over 40 grams of crack cocaine, more than 100 grams of powder cocaine, marijuana, ecstasy pills, and nearly $2,500” (United States Attorney’s Office).

After months of denying rumors and accusations of his drug use, former mayor of Washington, DC, Marion S. Barry, Jr., was caught engaging in illegal drug activity in a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) sting operation. The veteran mayor 's crime was caught on video tape by federal agents. On the night of January 18, 1990, FBI agents arrested Barry and brought him before a federal magistrate on misdemeanor drug charges of buying and selling crack-cocaine. Barry 's ex-girlfriend, former model Rasheeda Moore was a cooperating government witness in the FBI undercover operation. Moore allegedly lured the mayor to a hotel rendezvous for romance and drugs. Prior to Barry and Moore 's engagement, the FBI installed a hidden camera in the Washington, DC, hotel room. The camera provided United States attorneys and FBI agents with a real-time video feed of the events taking place in the hotel room (CBS Interactive, 1990).

Facts: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and states that an officer to have both probable cause and a search warrant in order to search a person or their property. There are several exceptions to this requirement. One exception to this is when an officer makes an arrest; the officer can search an arrestee and the area within his immediate control without first obtaining a search warrant. This case brings forth the extent of an officer’s power in searching an arrestee’s vehicle after he has been arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car. On August 25, 1999, the police responded to an anonymous tip of drug activity at a particular residence. When they arrived on scene, Rodney Gant answered the door

Maryland police officers pulled a vehicle over for speeding at approximately 3am on 7 August 1999. The police officers found three men in the vehicle. The driver was Donte Partlow, the front seat passenger and defendant Joseph Pringle, and the backseat passenger Otis Smith. One of the police officers asked the owner and driver of the vehicle for his license and registration. When Partlow opened the glove box, the police officer observed a large amount of money in the glove box. The police officer checked for outstanding warrants and issued Partlow a warning. Then the officer asked for permission to search his vehicle. Upon searching the vehicle the police officer found the money he had seen earlier as well as five baggies of cocaine in-between the armrest and back seat. All three occupants in the vehicle were questioned and denied any knowledge or ownership of the cocaine. Subsequently all three men were arrested and brought back to the police station for questioning. Pringle waived his rights after being given a Miranda warning and confessed that the cocaine was his and he intended to sell it. He claimed that the other occupants in the vehicle had no knowledge of the drugs. At trial, Pringle moved to suppress his confession, claiming that it was the result of an illegal arrest. The court denied his motion, and

Offer Jones did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop and confront the individual. As law enforcement officer Jones should contact his supervisor and inform them about the tip that he received about possible drug activity at that location. He could have got authorization from his supervisor to conduct surveillance to verify that there was actually drug activity going on at that location. But because this officer decided to stop the individual without concrete evidence made his actions

The police department did a follow up with the highly detailed tip they received. The defendants where watched closely and the officers did a follow up on the exact activities that they received from the anonymous tip. The officers gathered all the information they observed in doing the follow up, and received a warrant. The warrant allowed the officers to search the home and the defendant’s automobiles. The officer’s drug dogs found drugs, weapons and contraband in the defendants home and automobiles. Stated in the article, that the defendants made trips to Florida to bring back narcotics. Mader followed up on the tip and discovered that Lance had made a reservation to West Palm Beach. Lance was followed to the hotel, where he left with Sue in the family car back to Bloomingdale. The information that the officers gathered allowed them to provide evidence that the defendants where selling and bringing back drugs and with the tip, they were given a search warrant from the magistrate.

Using cell phone data, a phone number was found connected to the potential purchaser of the drugs. Officers contacted residents

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

Jones should not have been allowed to be used against him in his trial. Allowing the entry of his statements is a direct violation of his Constitutional rights. Mr. Jones was compelled to make the statements he made to Officer Booker. He would not have made them on his own free will. If an attorney had been present, as requested, his right to not incriminate himself would have been enforced.

Federal case Carroll vs. United States, taking place in 1925, regarded Carroll, whom federal agents suspected was selling liquor during the Prohibition. After seeing him on the highway, they gave a chase, searched the car, and discovered alcohol. While Carroll argued that a warrant was needed, the Supreme Court said that the warrantless search was valid because otherwise, the evidence would have disappeared as Carroll drove away. (Doc A1) DLK’s situation, while different, shares at least one common similarity- the evidence is not permanent. As DLK was a weed dealer, he made profit off of selling marijuana- the very marijuana he grew in his home. If federal agents had come back at a later date, DLK may have sold away all the evidence needed to incriminate him. Because the case was fairly time sensitive, and stemmed from a previous suspicions, the thermal scan was

Watson, upon the pat down of Mr. Watsons’ person, officer Johnson found a “hand carved pipe with a golf ball size bowl and a five inch long pipe’ which officer Johnson believed was being used for smoking marijuana. Officer Johnson then handcuffed and placed Watson into the back seat of his patrol car and went to remove the keys from the Watson vehicle to check the trunk for the kidnapped three year old child, upon opening the trunk of the Fiat sports coupe car, Johnson found a cellophane wrapped package that looks to contain marijuana. Officer Johnson returned to his patrol car and informed Watson that he was under arrest for the Possession of Marijuana with the intent to distribute a controlled drug substance.