Us Vs Drayton Case Study

The Supreme Court opinion regarding the actions the officer took in using excessive force was reasonable under the circumstances that Victor Harris had put other drivers and law enforcement officers in danger and concluded that Deputy Scott did not violate the constitutional rights by the use of unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

In the case of Santiago v. State of New Mexico (Santiago v. State of New Mexico, 2009), security officers had responded to a fight and caught the defendant running out the front door of the Mall they were working at. The defendant was pinned to the ground and handcuffed. The security guards searched the defendant by reaching inside his pockets and removing several items, including a pill bottle containing four grams of cocaine. Shortly after, police showed up and the defendant, as well as the removed items, was turned over to police.

Banks, was the handling of the searches. According to Shade v. City of Farmington (2002), administrators should conduct a search first and then utilize expertise of SRO if evidence is discovered. The administration was not involved in the initial search. In both Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District (1983) and New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) the court deemed it legal to conduct drug searches for probable cause of school lockers and cars in parking lot, so the search of Truant’s belongings was justified if it had been completed by administration first. Ms. Banks should not have conducted any search. The cigarettes and lighter found in the car should be returned to Truant’s parents. Since no drugs were found during the mishandled searches, a drug test should not have been conducted. This was a violation of Truant’s rights. There were no reliable sources corroborating Truant’s use of drugs, nor did any of the searches reveal a reasonable suspicion of his drug

In the court case SMYTH v. LUBBERS, 398 F.Supp 777 (1975) the plaintiff’s rooms were searched without a warrant or probable cause by campus police officers that were acting as officials of the state. They seized a substance that was alleged to be marijuana and proceeded to arrest the plaintiffs. The court held that the search and seizure was illegal because, that two of the campus police officers were acting as representatives of the county police at the time, and there are rules in the student handbook at that college in place to protect students from illegal search and seizure, and those rule were not followed. Just like in Jones v. Rohward University, Deary Jones was subjected to an illegal search and seizure. This search and seizure is

Two police officers entered the bus, and work Bostick with a bright green “raid” jacket and displaying their badges and a gun. At this point, the bus was currently stopped at a brief layover in Fort Lauderdale, the officers were “working the bus” looking for persons who might be carrying drugs. Officers quickly asked for his identification and if they could search his belongings. Bostick gave the officers their consent, even though he knew he was carrying a pound of cocaine. Bostick was arrested and he was charged and convicted of trafficking cocaine (Alexander 2016). However, the problem with this case is that police had no reasonable suspicious to search Bostock’s belongings. They also failed to mention, that he was free to remain silent or to refuse to answer any of the their questions. These case supports her thesis by, officers stereotyping the African American man as a drug war criminal. They had no reason to suggest, that he had drugs and formally chose to search his belongings based on the color of his skin. Also, no reasonable person in that situation could have felt as if they had the right to say no to their items being searched or remaining silent, since Bostick was approached with guns and badges he felt intimidated and fearful to follow officers orders. Later on the U.S. Supreme court reversed the outcome of the case, on the grounds that the

The trial court denied Harris’s motion to suppress evidence that was found when Officer Wheetley performed a search, and the court found that Wheetley had probable cause to search Harris’s vehicle. The defendant entered a not guilty plea and appealed to the intermediate state court. The intermediate state court affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the decision stating that Wheetley lacked probable cause. When the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, they rejected and reversed the decision that the Florida Supreme court made, and they upheld the decision of the trial court.

In the article of Ted Johnson “Court Rules for Couple in Police Seizure of Car” he talks about the damages the officers did.”the city violated 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure... Dale and Linda Conner were awarded $71,000 in damages.” They did the improper search on both automobiles and must have damage them a lot. This was not an acceptable search and seizure and they ruined their automobiles so sometimes it's better to say no to search and

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

In the case of Illinois vs. Wardlow, many factors contributed to Wardlow’s arrest. Starting with the facts of the case, on September 9, 1995 Sam Wardlow fled after seeing police vehicles covering an area in Chicago where it was known to have high drug trafficking. Two police officers spotted Wardlow, Officers Nolan and Officer Harvey, and once Officer Nolan caught up with Mr. Wardlow, Officer Nolan proceeded to conduct a pat-down search of only the outer layer of clothing, or a “Terry Stop.” Officer Nolan was well aware that in this area, there was almost always a weapon on a suspect that was involved with some type of drug transaction. After conducting the frisk, Officer Nolan squeezed the opaque colored bag that Mr. Wardlow was

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

Officer had probable cause to affect a traffic stop after he observed defendant following too closely. Defendant's and passenger's behavior after stop provided reasonable suspicion to expand the detention, and a positive drug dog sniff provided basis for search of vehicle.

Officers spend years training and devolping key investigate tools, techniques, and continually learning how to be more effective in protecting the public. The Supreme Court affirms that once an officer detains or arrests a person for a weapons violation, tampers with evidence, or drugs; officers are authorized to search areas or vehicles the arrested person was in control of. Arizona v. Johnson established doctrine for the pat and frisk under the following requiremnts: an officer believes he witnessed criminal activity, he or she inititates contact, fearing the individual may have a concealed and dangerous weapon a pat down is conducted. The above case happend in Tucson, AZ while officers were patrolling a neighborhood known for Crip gang member activity. The task force pulled the vehicle over a moving violation, upon making contact with vehicle occupants, a male in the backseat displayed very unusual behavior. The officer also noticed colors associated with Crip gang members, and the officer asked Mr. Johnson to step out and away from the vehicle. He concducted a stop and frisk for his own safety and discovered a handgun. The stop and frisk took an active gang member and handgun off the streets, the may

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

The Mapp vs Ohio case was when police officers in a Cleveland got information that a suspect in a bombing case and illegal equipment might be found in Dollree Mapp house. Three officers went to the his house and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to let them in without a search warrant. So Two officers left, and one stayed. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. They had a random paper, and broke in the door. Mapp asked to see the “warrant” and took it from an officer, putting it in her dress. The officers struggled with Mapp and took the fake warrant away from her. They handcuffed her for being “belligerent.” The police did not find the bombing suspect or the betting equipment.They did find pornographic material in a trunk that a previous tenant had left behind. “She was arrested, prosecuted, and found guilty of possession of pornographic

Is the warrantless search and seizure of Elliot Watson, who was arrested for possession of Marijuana with the intent to distribute, after being detained by Officer Johnson who was on the lookout for a vehicle and kidnapper with the same vehicle and clothing description as Mr. Watsons’ sports coupe car and 5 foot 9 inches tall, brown hair, and brown eyes wearing a white tee-shirt and blue jeans, legal?