Katherine Arrest: A Case Study

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.

Keli Lane-Contemporary Criminal Case Original case citation: R V Keli Lane (2011) NSWSC 298, 15 April 2011, Whealy JA (1) Appeal citation : R V Keli Lane (2013) NSWCCA 317, 13 December 2013(1) Elements of the offence: Actus Reus: Keli Lane was found guilty of murder and three counts of false swearing.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every individual’s personal privacy, and every person’s right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in their homes, businesses and property, regardless of whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork, (1980) (Payton v. New York | Casebriefs, 2017).

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

The family has been determined indigent for services. Samkisha has received public defender services for her criminal matters and Mrs. Beale has received Medicaid since she was 16 years of age. Mrs. Beale disclosed she is court ordered to receive child support in the amount of $202 per month from Mr. Robinson for Samkisha, but stated he seldom make payments of such. She also reported she receives unemployment in the amount of $204 per week and Social Security Income (SSI) for Samkisha in the amount of $670 per month.

I would go for a targeted communication strategy to each of the different stakeholders. The first one will be to Jessica’s parents to re-explain the true nature of these unfortunate circumstances. I would explain to them the entire process and where we went wrong and apologize. I would also convey that the unfortunate circumstances were not specifically targeted at them but it was a bad lapse in the entire process and while we can help at this particular time with your daughter, we will reevaluate the entire process to ensure that nothing like that ever happens again. I would also inform them that from now on, to reflect the changing demographics in the area the hospital covers, the hospital will be offering language classes to all their staff to better communicate with people from different social and cultural

The major constitutional issue this case deals with is the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially

There are crimes every single day in the United States.  Some people are arrested for certain reasons.  Those reasons may not always be clear, but due to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, an individual is able to know his or her rights to better understand the arrest and the trial that is to come.

Alternatively, they focused on the Fourth Amendment which does not allow any “unreasonable search and seizures”. Mapp 's lawyer also asked if the material gathered were protected by the first amendment. The legal decision ruled that Ms. Mapp 's rights were in fact violated as a result of the Cleveland Police Department 's failure to provide a warrant upon their entrance of her home. The due process is the government 's responsibility to respect, support and maintain the rights of a person who lawfully lives in the United States.

In these situations, they did not use a warrant but inferred that they were hiding something. In this dilemma, these actions were probably the right thing to do because if they had to get a warrant, they would hide from them. One thing they could've done to not violate the 4th Amendment was hold them in custody until they could go on trial.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizens against unlawful searches and seizures - a warrant with reasonable justification to lead a search is required, in this case protecting Mapp from further conviction (since the police entered without any search warrant). Her case, which was brought to the US supreme court, ended 5/3 in her favour. The Court proclaimed that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth

On April 7,2018, I was assigned the duties as Field Training Deputy. At approximately 0420, Arrestee Hedman, Roy (#1749220) was refusing to follow any orders given to him by Deputies when he entered the Intake Area. While in Holding Cell B116, Arrestee Hedman attempted to kick Deputy Holliday twice. I took control of Arrestee Hedman's legs to prevent him from kicking any staff members. While attempting to remove Arrestee Hedman's pants, Inmate Hedman attempted to stand up twice on the bench. Inmate Hedman refused to comply with any commands being given to him. I then took control of Arrestee Hedman's right leg and assisted him to the floor. I then took control again of both of Arrestee Hedman's legs. I removed Arrestee Hedman's pants, underwear,

At the urging of her attorney, Mapp appealed her conviction on the grounds that her First Amendment right had been violated. Her argument was that she was well within her rights to have been in the possession of the explicit material found during the search of her home. Interestingly enough, when her case went before the Supreme Court it was not the First Amendment that was addressed, but the Fourth Amendment. The argument supporting Mapp highlighted the fact that a search warrant was never produced at her original trial, so evidence against her should not have been used. Due to the fact that the evidence was seized illegally by the police without a warrant, the police violated her Fourth Amendment right. The Constitutional issue surrounding the case of Mapp v. Ohio involves the Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) Search and Seizure. Amendment IV was passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and ratified on December 15, 1791. According to the National Constitution Center, “Amendment IV people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Amendment IV Search and

The Elizabeth Fry society in an organization created to work with women in each stage of the criminal justice process. The three stages referred to within this organization are women who are at risk, are involved in the criminal justice system, and recovery and transition from institutions, to effectively reintegrate back into society (Elizabeth Fry Society of Greater Vancouver, 2012). The organization was established by Elizabeth Fry, 1839, who was deemed a significant advocate for humane treatment of women, specializing in women and children regarding treatment within the criminal justice system (Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Society, 2013). Furthermore, this individual’s insight, and persistence in asserting a role as an

2. The issue of violation of her Fourth Amendment rights since the “search,” for better lack of words, and seizure could possibly be a problem relating back to the consent and search warrant issue, and