Ms. Tineo Case Study

Jalen was placed in the rear of my marked Police vehicle. Prior to entering my vehicle, I completed as search of Jalen’s clothing. He had a cell phone charger in his left pocket and a cell phone in his right pocket. I removed the cell phone and kept it in my possession. FTO Noble and Officer R. Collins would later take the phone for evidence. Marlon was placed in the rear of Officer Baker’s marked Police vehicle. Both were transported to 1337 Copperstone Circle, where the vehicle was located. I gathered Jalen’s parent information at this time.

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

the charge, and went to trial. During her trial, no search warrant was ever produced. The judge stated that there was considerable doubt as to whether there ever

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

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.

Deputy Sheriff Parker arrives in your office requesting to see the records of Sally Jones. Sally was involved in an altercation at a local establishment last night. Deputy Parker does not have an authorization, search warrant, or subpoena.

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

T.L.O appealed the ruling and sought to eliminate the evidence from her purse and verbal confession by an ‘unlawful’ search (per the Fourth Amendment), which was denied. Following her conviction, she appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1983. Her conviction was reversed because the court concluded that the search was unreasonable.

I then escorted Inmate Staggs to the Durango Medical Clinic. While on the way to medical I asked Inmate Staggs what time he fell in shower? He told me around the time the evening meal was served. I asked Inmate Staggs if the reason he is going to medical was due to a crime committed against him while in MCSO custody? Inmate Staggs said "No." After that I dropped him off at medical. I then went to review the Gentec Security Desk System with Sgt. Salazar B0654.

On Friday, 17 July 2015, at approximately 1400 hours, I, Officer Allison Bigham, was contacted by a Parks Services Supervisor, Andrew Jones, in regards to an associate who was reported to have their cell phone on them. Jones stated that Miller had already been told to put the phone in her locker; however, she was being uncooperative. After updating Sergeants Frank Long and Charles Drakeford on the situation, I was instructed to pick up the associate, Victoria Miller, and escort her to the South Carolina Interview Room in order to complete a compliance verification audit. I met with Andrew Jones who stated that he would help me find Miller because Park Services had no way to contact her. Upon entering Boomerang Bay, Jones and I were flagged

On the above date and time, I (Dep. Kelley-Dinkins) saw Inmate Cortez Washington open cell 41 door after standing outside waiting for it to be open. I yelled out to ask Inmate Washington was he going in to stay, because he was out for rec. He did not reply, he just stood there. Inmate Washington was later seen turning his back to the day room and when he turned around I saw the door to his cell cracked open. Inmate Washington then looked over to the deputy panel where I was sitting. I motioned for him to come to me. Washington stepped to the panel and tried to explain that he wanted his cup. I told Washington he would receive a disciplinary

The raid did not go as planned. Standard procedure was to line up the patrons, check their identification, and have female police officers take customers dressed as women to the bathroom to verify their sex, upon which any men dressed

The officers left Ms. Mapp’s home leaving one officer behind and returned several hours later with several more officers and again requested entry in to the home. The officers brandished a piece of paper, supposedly as a search warrant then proceeded to break in the door to the home. When the officers entered the home Ms. Mapp asked to see the warrant and as it was displayed took it from the officers hands and placed in near her body and or in her dress, the accounts differ here. One of the officers struggled with Mapp and eventually confiscated the paper from her. Subsequently Ms. Mapp was handcuffed for being, according to the officers “belligerent”.

According to Use Of Force Report submitted by Officer Graham dated: (06/17/2017), she was assigned to 11A B-post. In sum and substance Officer Graham reported, at no time Officer Graham use or witness force. Officer

I spoke to the Officer Houston regarding her cell search. She stated that she did not slam down your mattress and break your glasses. She said that she took precautions to ensure that no personal property was damaged during her cell search.