Thank You For Meeting With Me This Past Week

On 11/6/2017 at 1400 hours, I Officer Graves, responded to 735 E Haggard Ave Elon, NC 27244 in reference to an assist. Upon arrival Detective Turney, Lieutenant Sweat, and Officer Peters were at apartment K executing a search warrant. I was requested to remain outside of the residence at the front door. At 1426 hours Captain B. Tillotson entered the residence and left at 1441 hours. At hours Officer Peters released Jacy Loshin from the premises after issuing a citation. At 1455 hours Officer Chavis entered the residence and remained until the search warrant execution was completed at 1530 hours, when all remaining officers cleared.

Hey, Professor Farris, according to the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department any search or seizure without a warrant must be justified and supported by clear, convincing and articulable facts. Officers must be prepared to justify any and all warrantless searches. A search without a warrant has consistently been found by the courts to be preemptively unreasonable, and therefore invalid, absent specific and articulable facts. If an experienced officer has the reasonable suspicions can articulate to a set of facts and circumstances that criminal activity may be afoot and make rational inferences. (Booker, 2015) The officer must have probable cause under any circumstances that would lead a reasonable man to believe that it is more likely than not a certain individual has committed or is committing an absolute crime. Officers may search vehicles when there is probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime is present in the vehicle. The vehicles need only to show inherent mobility rather than actual mobility. The search can be made immediately or delayed as long as probable cause existed even if the vehicle has been impounded and immobilized. An officer may search in any place that the object of the search may reasonably be found. This includes locked containers. Probable cause must be item specific. Probable cause for arrest is not probable cause for a search. Probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search has to be just as sufficient as probable cause to support

I asked STINSON if he had anything on him and if I could search him. Stinson verbally consented allowing me to search his person. Upon searching his person, nothing illegal was found. I asked STINSON if I could search his pink back pack that he was wearing. STINSON stated "I rather you not." I asked STINSON if there was something illegal in the back pack. STINSON replied yes. I asked STINSON what he had illegal in his back pack. STINSON stated he had a "little bit of weed." Upon STINSON admitting to me that he had illegal narcotics in his back pack, I conducted a probable cause search of the back pack. Upon opening the front pocket of the back pack, I found a silver spoon with a white powdery substance on the spoon. The spoon was partially sealed within plastic. I conducted a field test on the white powdery substance on the spoon following instructions on the test kit. The test kit showed turned

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.

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

Picture this… your name is Deshawn Price. You are currently a business student at the University of Michigan. One day, a driver informs the police that you were jaywalking. The accusation is accurate and the police sojourn you for questioning. Despite responding to all of the officer’s questions politely, they begin to search you without your consent. In your backpack is a gram of marijuana that you were planning to bring to a party later that night. This detail makes you very nervous and you continue to decline the officer’s wish to search you. Regardless of your request for privacy, the officer searches you and discovers the marijuana. Consequently, you are written up for a minor possession and due for a court appearance in a month.

Teagle 170 P.3d 266 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007), defendant Teagle was pulled over after being observed speeding down the highway. When the officer approached the vehicle, he noticed two cellular phones on the dashboard, an open container of liquor, fast-food wrappers, a box of cookies, a map, and luggage and clothing in the backseat. The officer gave the defendant a warning and then asked him if there was any contraband in the vehicle or whether there was a chance anyone else could have placed any contraband in the vehicle. Although the defendant answered in the negative, the officer returned to his patrol vehicle and asked if there was a canine unit available. There was not and so the officer told the defendant that he was free to leave. Shortly afterwards, the officer saw the defendant speeding once again down the road. The officer proceeded to pull him over and gave him another warning. The officer again asked him if he could search the vehicle and the defendant answered in the affirmative. The officer called a canine unit which arrived an hour later. The canine, in proceeding to do an exterior sniff, circled around to the trunk. The officers then opened the trunk to find 338 pounds of marijuana, a can of air freshener under the driver’s seat and several toilet bowl sanitizers in the compartment ofthe vehicle as well as the trunk. These were all indicative of an attempt to mask the smell of marijuana. At trial, the defendant argued that he had taken his vehicle to a repair shop, implying that someone else had placed the drugs in the car. The court found that there was enough evidence, including the large amount of drugs in the trunk of the vehicle, the air freshener, and the inconsistent statements to determine that the defendant had sufficient knowledge of the marijuana in the

Facts: August 7, 1999, a car occupied by three men, Donte Partlow (driver and owner of vehicle) accused Pringle (front seat passenger), and Otis Smith riding in the back seat, were ultimately pulled over by a police officer for driving over the speed limit. Upon the officer approaching the vehicle, he asked to see Partlow’s license and registration, and as the defendant opened his glovebox, a fairly large sum of money was exposed in the amount of $763. The officer then returned to his patrol car to check Parlow’s license to ensure he had no warrants of anything outstanding, Partlow came out clear, so he issued Partlow a verbal warning. Upon arrival of the second officer he asked if they minded he search the vehicle, Partlow had no issues and agreed to the search. The police not only found the $763 in the glove compartment but also five glassine Baggies of cocaine stashed behind the backseat armrest. The officers questioned the men as to who the cash and drugs belong too, none of them took ownership, the officers advised them that if no one claim the drugs and cash as theirs, they all would be arrested and charged. So, all three were arrested and taken to jail. Later on, in the morning Pringle decided he would waived his Miranda rights, then made a full verbal and written admission that the cash and drugs were his

Good morning, my names is Yaquelin Madrigal and the two gentleman at my left are Dr. Lee and Mr. Right. Today, we are going to discuss the of case Mr. Mario. A man who could have indanger innocent people because of his act. He was arrested after being stop by the Phoenix police department on November 15. After the individual was stop, the officer smelled an alcohol oder comming from Mario's mouth. He was arrested for a DUI. But, what happen when the officers search the car? They found an amount methamphemine. This would have add to Mario's sentence.

Before a person is arrested the police usually need a probable cause to arrest them, or a solid reason to arrest someone. The same goes with the police coming to your house to search it, they need a warrant, or a signed piece of paper signed by a judge. In order to get this paper they need proper evidence or else it

An Ohio court ruled that the police needed a warrant to search a cellphone because, unlike a piece of paper that might be stuffed inside a suspect’s pocket and can be confiscated during an arrest, a cellphone may hold “large amounts of private data.”

Law enforcement officers can conduct warrantless searches for a variety of reasons. Some of the benefits are not having to wait for a judge of magistrate to sign off on it. If you can obtain consent from an individual it must be voluntary and stay within its scope, as well as the person giving consent must have the authority to do so. The search incident to lawful arrest exception is used every time an officer makes an arrest, this is to ensure their safety, prevent escape, and prevent destruction of evidence. This could be a body search, or a search within the area within a person’s immediate control. Police may use warrantless searches when exigent circumstances arise, such as when a warrant may be impractical, useless, dangerous, or unnecessary. These include danger of physical harm to officer or destruction of evidence, searches in hot pursuit of dangerous suspects, danger to a third person, and driving while intoxicated. Police can also use the special needs beyond law enforcement exception for public school searches, testing students for drugs, airport searches and searches of probationers and parolees.

NOW COMES the Defendant Edgar Flannagan in the above-entitled matter and hereby respectfully moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 13 of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure, to suppress all evidence against him. Specifically, any and all items seized as a result of the warrantless stop and arrest of the defendant, and the warrantless search and seizure of the car that took place on February 15, 2016 in Lawrence MA. This includes, but is not limited to all observations made by arresting police officer, all controlled substance seized by the police officer. The Defendant further moves to suppress any "fruits" of the illegal search and seizure, including but not limited to, any statements allegedly made by him. As

While waiting for the second officer to arrive, Struble issued and explained the state of the warning, returned all documents back to the driver and the passenger, and asked to search the vehicle. The driver, Rodriguez, declined the officers’ request and was instructed to exit and stop the ignition of the vehicle until the second officer arrived. When the second officer arrived, a drug dog was walked around Rodriguez’s vehicle and gave an alert half way through the second round. Subsequently, Rodriguez was charged with “one count of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (575 U.S.__(2015)).”