The Court Of Appeals Of Maryland

As technology advances, the world is forced to adapt as an increasingly quick pace. Specifically, our justice system must consider the constitutionality of surveillance and other information gathering techniques and how they coincide with current interpretations of the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 2013 case of Maryland v King explicitly related to the legality of DNA collection of individuals early in the booking process for serious crimes. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that pre-conviction DNA collection of those arrested for serious crimes is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth Amendment; a decision that will

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).)

Kirk Noble Bloodsworth was wrongly convicted for the sexual assault, rape, and premeditated murder of 9-year-old Dawn Venice Hamilton. Bloodsworth would spend nearly 9 years in confinement for a crime that he did not commit. Despite his vehement pleas of innocence, the circumstantial evidence was enough to convince a jury that he was the culprit. He was ultimately sentenced to death for the heinous crimes committed to Hamilton. With receiving the death penalty, his case would automatically be appealed. The legal system of the state of Maryland had ultimately failed Kirk Bloodsworth.

Once it is established the testing method used passes the Daubert test, the court must determine admissibility based on the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (US Const.)

The central issue of the Duke rape case includes Duke University student, Crystal Mangum, as the accuser of several Duke University lacrosse players of having committed sexual assault during a party that the players held in their house, which allegedly followed a stripping job Crystal Mangum performed for the players. After the allegation, a sexual assault kit was conducted and processed. Following the processing, it was found that none of the Duke University lacrosse players’ DNA was found in the sexual assault test kit. However, multiple other men’s DNA was found in the sexual assault test kit. With this knowledge, Durham District Attorney, Mike Nifong, continued to pursue the case, ignoring the results of the DNA sexual assault kit.

The question brought up to the court resulting from this case was, was the evidence admitted at trial from Riley's cell phone discovered through a search that violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches? The Supreme Court ruled

In 2005, Albert Florence was admitted to a New Jerseyś Burlington County Jail for a minor offense and was thoroughly searched. According to Florence, his 4th Amendment was violated, and the searches conducted against him were unreasonable. He was forced to disrobe, squat while naked, shower in front of security, and prove that there was no contraband stored in or under his genitals. After Florence 's release from jail, he sued the government and went to the federal trial court, which ruled in favor of the petitioner (Albert Florence). However, the Third Circuit reversed, deeming that searches done in jail were constitutional due to the fact that they were promoting and protecting safety. The law states that “Strip search, including a digital rectal search, of a prisoner who allegedly refused to cooperate and injured a guard in resisting was reasonable and justified by a legitimate interest in maintaining order and security.” After the Third Circuit 's reversal the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. After viewing the precedent cases, the Supreme Court ruled that searches were lawful and did not in any way revoke 4th Amendment rights.

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

1. In 1819, McCulloch v. Maryland was a landmark decision deciding that the State of Maryland at the time cannot hinder federal banks by forcing a tax on banks not chartered by Maryland. At the time of 1810, banks were collapsing due to an economic downfall of the war of 1812. The banks that survived that were licensed by the States lacked a lot of recognition and trust to move forward after the war to make an economic push. Then in 1816, Congress granted a charter to the Second Bank of the United States and also provided one-fifth of the nation’s capital of $35 million.

"Honda of America Mfg., Inc. v. Norman Case Brief - Quimbee." Honda of America Mfg., Inc. v. Norman Case Brief - Quimbee. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.

With the number of DNA exonerations growing in the recent years, wrongful convictions reveal disturbing trends and fissures in the justice system. It shows how broken the system is, and why it needs urgent fixing. According to Huff (1996), over ten thousand people are convicted wrongfully for serious crimes each year. This study established that factors leading to wrongful convictions are false eyewitnesses, a prejudiced jury, incompetent prosecutors, and suspects’ ignorance. Where DNA evidence clears a suspect, array of reasons emerge; misconduct, mistakes, to race and class factors. It is important to make DNA data available to attorneys in order to enable them mount a strong

In the state of Maryland in the year 2010 research was conducted and seen that we Americans in the state spend over $1.3 billion on teenagers that drink (udetc). This includes accidents that happens, medical hospitalizations, work loss and pain and sufferage. Youth violence including accidents, fights, suicides and homicides is the largest cost of the state of Maryland (udetc) this is a big problem in the state and we could be using this money for a different reason.

Miscarriages of justices occur due to many variables including faulty or wrong confessions, faulty identifications, wrongful DNA evidence, and the police’s overreach of power. On February 9, 1978, a student from the College of William and Mary, located in Williamsburg, Virginia was sexually assaulted at gunpoint. When the police arrived at the scene, she described her assailant as an African-American male about 5’6 in height and weighing around 145. Having gathered this information, the victim agreed to identify her assailant through photo arrays at the police station. Bennett Barbour was identified arrested and in the span of about two months was charged with rape on April 14, 1978. Despite having an alibi, not matching the victim’s description, and having brittle bone disease Barbour was declared guilty by a jury. Barbour’s case is representative of the many cases in which wrongful eyewitness testimony produces miscarriages of justice. Bennett Barbour served 5 years in prison and 29 years of parole until he was cleared of his charges due to DNA evidence when the Virginia Supreme Court cleared his charges.

In March 2016, the petitioner alleges that the search of his dwelling authorized by his mother, who was his roommate at the time, was conducted unreasonably under the Fourth Amendment. (R-2,14.) Searches that are conducted exclusive of a warrant are considered unreasonable, subject only to a few specifically established exceptions. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973). One of the exceptions is voluntary consent, either from the individual who owns the property or from a third party who holds common authority over the premises. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S.

The DNA from the saliva was a perfect match with the DNA from the semen collected from the rape victims. Puetz, the investigator on the case defends the constitutionality of his evidence-gathering methods; the courts, he says, have held that once you've put out your trash, you've waived your right to keep the contents private, and "I don't see why the same wont hold true for saliva."(Adler).