Sheila Vs Marijuana Case Study

After the Supreme Court review the Wong Sun v United States case, the Supreme Court found that “Wong Sun statement could not be used to corroborate the second defendant’s police statement and the second defendant’s statement could not corroborate Wong Sun’s statement because neither statement was made during the existence of drug conspiracy” (Ingram p.89). Therefore, the Court conclude that the defendants of Wong Sun v United States case deserved a “new trial because there remained no admissible evidence against them” (Ingram

* 2. newly-discovered evidence which, if introduced at the trial, would probably have produced a

In Benters a reliable source told Detective J. Hastings there was an indoor marijuana growing operation at 527 Currin Road in Henderson, North Carolina, and Glenn Benters owned the property but was not living there. Benters at 662, 766 S.E.2d at 596 (2014). Hastings obtained a subpoena to look at the utility use for the property and discovered that it was indicative of a marijuana growing operation. Id. Hastings and Officer Joseph Ferguson traveled to Benters’ property and saw tools used for marijuana growing outside the premises. Id. After that observation, they conducted a knock and talk on the back door. Id. at 662, 766 S.E.2d at 596-597 (2014). After no answer, Ferguson walked to a building where music was playing and smelled

Looking at the case of the State of California versus Dante Ciraolo. On September 2, 1982, Detective John Schutz of the Santa Clara Police Department received an anonymous phone complaint about someone growing marijuana in their yard. Detective Schutz, a member of the Narcotics Division, went to the location given by the caller to investigate. When he arrived at the intersection of Stebbins Avenue and Clark Avenue, he noticed the residence at 2085 Clark Avenue. From his location on the street (figure 1) Detective Schultz observed a six-foot privacy fence with an inner fence of about ten feet in height, as such, Detective Schultz could not see any evidence of any marijuana cultivation or other criminal activity.

An adolescent named Savana Redding was in her math class when she was asked to go to the principal’s office. Redding was then question about the items in a planner which she stated did not belong to her. She was later questioned about the four white prescription-strength ibuprofen 400-mg pills and one over-the-counter blue naproxen 200-mg pill, all used for pain and inflammation but banned under school rules without advance permission. The principal asked Redding if she knew about the pills that were discovered and she answered no. The principal then disclosed to Redding that he was told that she was disbursing the pills to fellow students to which she denied. To prove her innocence she allowed the principal to search her belongings. The principal

Throughout an 18-hour period on October 26, 1989, the appellant Marc Creighton, a companion Frank Caddedu and the deceased Kimberley Ann Martin consumed a large quantity of alcohol and cocaine. The afternoon of the following day on October 27, the three planned to share a quantity of cocaine at Ms. Martin’s apartment. The evidence and later testimony indicates that all of the members involved are experienced cocaine users. The appellant acquired 3.5 grams (“an eight-ball”) of cocaine; he did not try to determine the quality or potency of the cocaine before injecting it into himself and Frank Caddedu.

Case Procedural History: Roy Caballes tried to suppress the drugs seized in the stop by claiming that the state troopers did not have probable cause to search his vehicle. The trial judge denied the motion to suppress the seized marijuana. The trial judge held that the use of the drug dog did not prolong the duration

The police found a bag of marijuana, a grinder, and a joint. Both Dedwin Shelling and Chester George were detained and read their Miranda rights. Mr. George was charged with possession of marijuana 2nd offense, as well as possession of drug paraphernalia.

Facts: In a New Jersey high school, two freshman girls were caught smoking in a bathroom. When taken to the Assistant Vice Principal, the first student admitted to smoking while the second, designated T.L.O due to her age, denied smoking in a restricted area. The VP proceeded to take student into his private office and searched her purse and discovered a pack of cigarettes. However, as he was searching, he also identified a stack of rolling papers, which led to a more thorough search of the purse which produced a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, a number of empty plastic bags, a significant amount of money, as wells an index card with names of various people who owed T.L.O money. This evidence implicated that the student was dealing, and T.L.O admitted to selling marijuana. The authorities were called and T.L.O was arrested.

Prior to the passage of this legislation, many people convicted with possession of drugs were given significantly long sentences under state laws; often this included individuals receiving life sentences for what is now known as simple possess (Courtwright, 2004). In this regard the Controlled substance act could be viewed as a liberalization of drugs policy by breaking up all drugs into schedules with differencing penalties. This does not mean that the legislation is not without

Morris, 331 N.W.2d 48, 53 (N.D. 1983)); Florida v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 2012) (discussing the difference between actual and constructive possession); Brent v. State, 957 N.E.2d 648, 648, 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (holding that the defendant did not have actual or constructive possession of a bag of drugs located on the ground, beside a vehicle, that the defendant was in); Hunter v. Commonwealth, 690 S.E.2d 792, 794, 799 (Va. 2010) (holding that the evidence would have supported a charge of constructive possession of a firearm when the defendant/passenger stated that the gun located in the driver’s glovebox was his, but he was not charged with that crime); Martinez v. State, 152 P.3d 1237, 1243 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the defendant’s case must be reversed because he was not aware of the required mental state to plead guilty to constructive possession); Campbell v. People, 73 P.3d 11, 14 (Colo. 2003) (holding that the State must prove that the accused had actual or constructive possession of the drug); Washington v. McPherson, 46 P.3d 284, 291 (Wash. 2002) (holding that the defendant had actual possession of drugs found in another person’s pocket under the accomplice liability theory); Sims v. Alabama, 733 So. 2d 926, 929 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998) (holding that the defendant had actual possession of the drugs located under the driver’s seat of a vehicle he

The Federal District court denied this motion to suppress the block of methamphetamine and prosecuted Bond finding him guilty of conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute. Moreover, Bond challenged the judgment made on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on grounds that the court should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence since it was a violation of his right under the Fourth Amendment and because as per the petitioner, Bond, the officer had manipulated the bag in a way that other passengers would not have. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected his argument and affirmed the lower court’s

Marijuana is currently a hot topic of debate throughout Canada, and has been for the past few years. Marijuana was first banned in 1923 under the Opium and Drug Act, but since 1997 the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act have controlled it. In 2000, over 30,000 Canadians were charged with possession of marijuana. Currently, the marijuana laws are not enforced equally across the country, which has prompted the interest in changing the laws or possibly decriminalizing marijuana. Also, those convicted of marijuana related crimes usually don’t go to jail, but they do receive a criminal record.

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent

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