Questions and Answers on Criminal Procedure

Over time, technology has impacted the police and other law enforcement agencies with new devices for gathering evidence. These new tools have caused constitutional questions to surface. One particular case in Oregon of an individual (DLK) aroused such question. DLK was suspected of growing marijuana inside of his home. Agents used a thermal imager to scan DLK’s residence form the outside. The results indicated heat, just like the kind that is generated by special lights used for growing marijuana indoors. Constructed by the scan, a judge issued a search warrant. A warrant – a legal paper authorizing a search – cannot be issued unless there is

The specific aims and purposes of criminal law is to punish criminals, and prevent people from becoming future criminals by using deterrence. “Having a criminal justice system that imposes liability and punishment for violations deter.” (Paul H. Robinson, John M. Darley, Does Criminal Law Deter? A Behavioural Science Investigation, Oxford Journal of Legal studies, volume 24, No. 2 (2004), pp. 173-205). Criminal law

Second, there must be probable cause to believe that the items sought are connected to criminal activity (Hall, 2016.) When a search warrant is granted then there needs to be probable cause that is connected to the criminal act in which we are able to find more evidence to prosecute the criminal.

Search incident to Lawful Arrest- if an individual happens to be arrested lawfully they are no longer a free citizen therefore a police officer may search their persons and any areas that are within their reach. An example can be Mary is arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. She was stopped after swerving through the road and going at a very slow speed. A search of her vehicle found narcotics in the passenger side of the vehicle. She was herself and that was within her wingspan.

officers entered her home without a warrant. The court cited that the search was without probable

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

Is a person’s giving of consent to search an inculpatory or exculpatory statement? Should a person in custody be given Miranda warnings before being asked for consent to search? Why must police give elaborate warnings before custodial interrogation but no warnings

Probable cause is defined as a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, that evidence is at the place being sear5ched or on the person being searched, or that a specific person is believed to have committed, is committing, or will commit a certain crime. Law enforcement cannot just go to a judge and say they have probable cause for a warrant. To obtain a warrant law enforcement needs something to substantiate their belief. The standard for probable cause to be met is for any reasonable person to believe based on the evidence or observations presented that indeed either a suspect has or is engaging in criminal activity, or that evidence exists at a certain location. Not all searches require probable cause to be established. The exception to the probable cause is reasonable suspicion. An example of this is a customs search. A custom search requires no warrant or probable cause be presented. But if a custom agent is going to detain a traveler for an extended

The Court recognized in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, that the scope of a warrantless search must be commensurate with the rationale that excepts the search from the warrant requirement. Chimel authorizes a search of incident to arrest for (1) weapons or (2) incriminating evidence. Further, Chimel limited the scope of a search incident to arrest to the person placed under arrest and the area “into which an arrestee might reach.” 395 U.S., at 763.

The knock-and-announce warrant, signed by Municipal Judge Andrew Hyde, was predicated by intelligence of drug trafficking out of the home, said Sheriff Timothy W. Zimmerly, noting the search warrant extended not

Probable cause is considered to be used contextually from case to case as its definition is not concrete and has no specific guidelines which can lead to some officers making unconstitutional searches. According to the Georgia Criminal Code OCGA 17-5-1 officers are only allowed to “search the person arrested and the area within the person’s immediate presence for the purpose of protecting the officer from attack, preventing the person from escaping, discovering or seizing the fruits of the crime for which the person has been arrested, or discovering or seizing any instruments, articles, or things which are being used or which may have been used in the commission of the crime for which the person has been arrested.”

This has to be one of my favorite assignments since becoming a student at Kaplan. I have been interested in the Criminal Justice since I was a small child. I come from a long line of military, however, my passion has always been Criminal Law. I remember even as a young girl in the 2nd grand, I had dreams and aspirations of becoming a lawyer. Now that I have an ex husband, and two children of my own and find the justice system a little “Leewayish” (if that’s even a word) on dead beat fathers, my dream has now become to be a “Ball busting District Attorney for deadbeat moms and dads. I am sick and tired of

In the case of Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 the court dismissed the charge the based on information in error. Therefore the illegal drugs that were found on the premises during the search had to be thrown out based on the poisonous fruit. Does the warranty at 10 did not have the drugs in the actual warrant on which they were looking for. Indeed, applying the exclusionary rule to warrant searches may well reduce incentives for police to utilize the preferred warrant procedure when a warrantless search may be permissible under one of the established exceptions to the warrant requirement. See ante, at 236; Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S., at 611, and n. 3 (POWELL, J., concurring in part); P. Johnson, New Approaches to Enforcing the Fourth Amendment 11 (unpublished paper, 1978). See also United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 316-317 (1972); United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102,

Question 7: Despite the wording of most statutes proscribing the offense of escape, courts increasingly require the prosecution to prove the defendant’s specific intent to avoid lawful confinement. Are courts justified in imposing such a requirement on the statutory law?

On the 20th of January, 2016, the Federal Investigative Unit of Bridgeport, West Virginia was called to the residence of 223 Maplewood Drive. Our unit acted on information that we had received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Before we arrived at the scene, our investigative unit obtained a search warrant for the individual's home. Search warrants are vital to any investigation because they are judge issued documents that give law enforcement officials permission to enter a certain area to conduct their searches (Graves, 2013). In order for any member of law enforcement to receive a search warrant, they must file a written document known as an affidavit. An affidavit must show probable cause, particularity