The Acquittal Of Burglary Charges Proper

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. (People v. Williams 20 Cal.4th 125.) A defendant may move to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. (Penal Code §1538.5(a)(1)(A).) Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 119; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366 (stating searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable unless subject to an established exception).) While the defendant has the initial burden of raising the warrantless search issue before the court, this burden is satisfied when the defendant asserts the absence of a warrant and makes a prima facie case in support. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 130.) Accordingly, when the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence seized during a warrantless search, they also bear the burden in showing that an exception to the warrant applies. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 98 S.Ct. 2408; see also People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99.) Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should be suppressed. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 372 (stating unreasonable searches are invalid under Terry and should be suppressed).)

Johnny Cade should not be convicted for murder because it was all out of self-defense. Ponyboy and Johnny were at the park when it happened. A blue Mustang full of Socs started to circle them because Ponyboy and Johnny picked up their girls at the movies. Bob got out of the car and Johnny seen the rings he was wearing were the same ring Bob had on when he jumped Johnny. Bob then told David to give Ponyboy a bath. By that he mean put Ponyboy's head into the fountain. Johnny got his switchblade and started to go to David to make him let go of Ponyboy. David let go of Ponyboy and ran. Bob started to ran after Johnny. Johnny stabbed Bob to save Ponyboy and himself. Therefore, Johnny is innocent and should not be convicted for murder. The prosecution

One controversial aspect of the Fourth Amendment is of how courts should seize evidence obtained illegally. The rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” However, it does not explain clearly what an unreasonable search or seizure is and in what cases a police officer should take caution when searching or seizing a suspect. As cases arose in which defendants brought these questions into court, the Supreme Court decided it would need to establish rules which the federal government would implement so that the government doesn’t abuse/overlook the people’s

That was the beginning of Frankum’s mass murder. Wade Frankum continued to kill with his gun, shooting bullets all over the place. He moved from the café to a nearby supermarket and later to the

Is evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment, prohibiting “unreasonable searches and seizures” admissible as evidence in criminal

"The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials. A search can mean everything from a frisking by a police officer to a blood test to a search of an individual’s home or car. A seizure occurs when the government takes control of an individual or something in his or her possession. Items that are seized often are used as evidence when the individual is charged with a crime" ("Annenberg Classroom," 2006). This amendment is meant for agents of the government, it does not apply to people who do not belong to the government.

Is evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment, prohibiting “unreasonable searches and seizures” admissible as evidence in criminal procedures?

Issue: Was the evidence discovered during the search and seizure conducted in violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution? Also can you obtain items that are not to be seized for the search and seizure?

The way that the Burglary Case Study would be addressed through the criminal justice process is to arrest the two sixteen-year-old girls (as they have already confessed), on felony charges of burglary with forcible entry which would likely have a prison penalty and/or fines and possibly restitution for damages and lost property (Theoharis, 2015). Depending on the state where the crime was committed they would be charged as adults; in my state which is New York, juveniles are children under 16 whereas 16 and over are charged as an adult (Merlan, 2013 ). The criminal justice process would likely use the elderly man’s heart attack in court, however it would be less likely motivated to help the victim than it would to convict and get harder sentencing

Due to both federal and state statutes, the victim’s legislative right to present a VIS may limit the judge’s options; nevertheless, many judges still have to make choices, as the judges in the cases discussed below (Wolff, 2009). Bobby was former police officer convicted of killing his girlfriend. However, even with the defendants’ family enter statements the judge would not aloe the jury to take into consideration of the fact that they put in the statement how they would feel if bobby had received the death penalty. Judges are required to assist in the actions to limit information to the

When conducting possible searches and seizers, the Fourth Amendment is made to protect unreasonable conduct. Due to

Based on the above observations, the suspect in question did not commit the crime. The duct tape found at the scene of the crime does not share qualities with the duct tape possessed by the suspect that are significant enough to conclude that the suspect is guilty.

At the trial the perpetrator claims that the prosecutor erroneously declared a particular component to jury members to reflect whether perpetrator’s behavior was that of a reasonable man “in Goetz’s situation.” The court determined that the examination should be completely subjective and dismissed because Goetz’s self-defense was completely reasonable to him. The People of New York refocused an order allowing them to resubmit the dismissed charges to a second grand jury. New York Supreme Court presented a camera analysis and the motion was approved. When the case was shown to the second grand jury, there statement that was received from two of the four men who had been shot, Troy Canty and James Ramseur, in addition to the four bystanders who had seen part of the incident. The second grand jury charged Goetz on ten count indictment which was then combined with the preceding of three count indictment.

Our Judicial System is messed up in many ways. From the way people get arrested to the sentencing process, everything is messed up. Our justice system obviously does not support crime which is why people get arrested when they commit crimes but something that has always troubled me is: how come, it is not okay for a regular civilian to kill someone but it is okay for a judge to decide to put someone under the death penalty, which is basically killing them. As the author of the article: In Favor of Capital Punishment calls it, why is it okay for the judicial system to commit “judicial homicide” (Barzun, 354). In this paper, I will discuss the reasons why I think the death penalty is not a step toward the resolution of the criminal problems that our cities are facing. I will use the four arguments presented by Barzun to support my thoughts.