Us Vs Whitfield Analysis

Over time, technology has impacted the police and other law enforcement agencies with new devices for gathering evidence. These new tools have caused constitutional questions to surface. One particular case in Oregon of an individual (DLK) aroused such question. DLK was suspected of growing marijuana inside of his home. Agents used a thermal imager to scan DLK’s residence form the outside. The results indicated heat, just like the kind that is generated by special lights used for growing marijuana indoors. Constructed by the scan, a judge issued a search warrant. A warrant – a legal paper authorizing a search – cannot be issued unless there is

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.

What if police could barge into any house whenever they feel like it? In a world like this, citizens would have no privacy. People would have to be on alert 24/7 in case any unwelcomed visitors invited themselves inside without permission. The Background Essay: Search and Seizure: Did the Government Go Too Far? notes that the British government would inspect colonists’ houses for certain goods. In order to avoid such circumstances, the Fourth Amendment was added to the Constitution of the United States. The Fourth Amendment states that a search warrant and a reasonable cause is required before any government official is allowed to search another’s belongings. However, in some dire situations, a search warrant is not necessary. The Background Essay gives the examples, “…hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and/or permission of the suspect,” for when police do not need to worry about taking the time to receive a search warrant. The Fourth Amendment is open to interpretation. As a result, there is a collection of various cases that need to be addressed that involve search and seizure. Such as the case of DLK. In this case, DLK’s house was searched by federal government officials with a thermal imager, which senses warmth, because he was suspected of growing marijuana. The question proposed is whether the use of such high-tech tools, like the thermal imager, count as a “search”. In a situation such as this, it is safe to say that the government went too

Under the Fourth Amendment, the police cannot just force their way into someone’s home without probable cause. Even with probable cause, the police need to have the consent of the owner or a warrant that says they can search the premises, and that anything they find can be “used against you in a court of law” (Miller, 2016). The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important amendments to the criminal justice system. The Fourth protects citizens from the police obtaining things that could lead citizens to be convicted for something that the police did not have permission to obtain in the first place. The exclusionary rule was put in place by Mapp v. Ohio and Weeks v. United States.

Third, the area to be searched and any item to be seized must be described with particularity (Hall, 2016.) There must be very specific information to obtain a search warrant. A warrant that authorizes a police officer to search a particular home for “unauthorized contraband” violates the Fourth Amendment (Hall, 2016.) A warrant authorizing a search of the same home is valid, provided the warrant is valid in all other respects (Hall, 2016.) The items seized must be very specific and usable items to convict the criminal of his or her actions within the act.

In the court case United States v. Ludwig the police took a narcotics dog through a parking lot in hopes that he would find the scent of drugs (www.loompanatics.com). Since a motorized vehicle has the ability to be driven far away and evidence can be removed, police believe that under certain circumstances they can search a car without a warrant. A dog alerted the cops by letting them know he smelled the scent of narcotics. They asked the suspect if they can search his truck. The suspect didn’t give them consent he was against the search but they still took the keys from him to search the truck. They found drugs in his trunk and a couple of large bags of marijuana. The police didn’t have a warrant nor did they have permission from the suspect to search his truck. The Supreme Court first ruled that it was unlawful to search his car without a warrant and no legit reasoning for the search. Then the court ruled that it was lawful because the officers said that the dog alerting them, were their reasoning for a warrantless search. The cops also stated in court that the reason they took the suspect’s keys is because if they have didn’t, there was a possibility that he could drive off and get rid off the drugs which would be their loss of evidence. This case shows how citizens have certain rights when it comes to their vehicles but they can still be ‘violated” in a sense.

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.

Facts: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and states that an officer to have both probable cause and a search warrant in order to search a person or their property. There are several exceptions to this requirement. One exception to this is when an officer makes an arrest; the officer can search an arrestee and the area within his immediate control without first obtaining a search warrant. This case brings forth the extent of an officer’s power in searching an arrestee’s vehicle after he has been arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car. On August 25, 1999, the police responded to an anonymous tip of drug activity at a particular residence. When they arrived on scene, Rodney Gant answered the door

The district court’s holding that allowing ambiguity to defeat apparent authority would unreasonably burden police officers by forcing them to clarify the consenter’s authority over every container within the area they were permitted to search should be upheld as it is one that is supported by persuasive precedent from a sister circuit of this Court. See United States v. Melgar, 227 F.3d 1038, 1042 (7th Cir. 2000). In Melgar, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit uses Supreme Court precedent to support the position on ambiguous apparent authority stated above. See id. (citing Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999)). The Seventh Circuit states the Supreme

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.

Brie’s authority to consent to a search of a shoebox located in the studio apartment she shared with her son, Mr. Brie, was not ambiguous because she gave the searching officers several clear indications of her mutual access to and use of the shoebox prior to their search and there were no obvious indications to the contrary. The instant case is similar to Illinois v. Rodriguez. In Illinois v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court found searching officers could have been reasonable in their beliefs that woman, who purported to live in a home the officers wished to search, keyed them into the home, and gave them permission to search it, had the authority to consent. 497 U.S. at 181-88. Here, similarly, Ms. Brie told officers she lived in the studio apartment they wanted to search, allowed them to enter, and gave them permission to search it. R. at 5. Additionally, this case is like Wright in which a court found officers were reasonable in their beliefs that a woman, who signed a form giving the officers permission to search areas in her home and told them that she has access to the areas to clean them prior to their search, had authority to consent. 63 F. Supp. 3d at 112-13, 124. In the instant case, Mr. Brie signed a form giving the officers permission to search her entire studio apartment with no exceptions and told the officers she had been the person who placed the shoebox in the location in which it was found. R. at 5. Furthermore, like in Purcell, in which a court found officers reasonably believed in a woman’s authority to consent to a search of a duffel bag she told them belonged to her before they opened it, here, Ms. Brie told the searching officers the shoebox belonged to a pair of her shoes before they searched it. 526 F.3d at 963-64; R. at 5. Lastly, the instant case is like Snype, in which a court found a women’s authority to consent to a search of a bag within her home was not ambiguous because there were no obvious indications to the officers that she did

It is 11/29/1853 and today is the first election of the kansas territory, John whitfield is selected as the territory's first delegate to congress. The real person to represent the kansas territory is Andrew h. Reeder and he is so excited to be a role model to the kansas environment and be a good representative. There is only one problem they are having trouble getting present franklin pierce to sign. He did not want to give up his spot but eventually he had to give it up because there was a new person but he could not face the fact that there was a new

The U.S. v. Hassan Court dictated the burden imposed on the government when determining knowledge of drug characteristics. The Court said that "The government has the burden to prove that there is evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant “knew that he was dealing with a substance regulated by federal drug abuse laws. . . .” U.S. v. Hassan, 578 F.3d 108, 124 (2d Cir. 2008). As stated above, David Fallsbauer was innocently trying to create a caffeinated substance for college-aged students to enhance their energy level while studying and during night-life. R. at 6. He knew that there were different ways to ingest the pills, including snorting or drinking dissolved tablets in liquid. R. at 6. His initial knowledge of the existence of Taz came solely from his nephew. He informed David how to make Taz, and David gave his nephew a sampling from his first batch to verify that they were correct. R. at 6. David would not have given any Taz to his young, 20 year old nephew to test if he thought it was a drug, or even similar to a drug in any regard. David merely saw the opportunity to be the supplier of what was in demand in order to help busy students and professionals. His intentions were pure in making the tablets that he thought were legal and not harmful. He said,

Martin Wittfooth, born in 1981, is not only an illustrator, but a fine artist as well. He earned his MFA (Master of Fine arts) at the school of Visual Arts in New York City. Wittfooth’s oil paintings explore themes of industry and nature, evolution, comparison of old ideologies and modern fears, and the growth of human nature on Earth itself; these themes are recognized through symbolism, allusions, issues, and fears. His work, without a doubt, has the ability to engage both the eye and the mind of the viewer.

Search and Seizure is an ongoing topic of debate and the rules involving search and seizure are constantly changing with the new advances in technology as the years move on. Everyone has the right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution, but how that right is implemented and what it covers is often brought up in the Court of Appeals. Many questions are brought up when it comes to search and seizure and whether the search and or seizure were conducted legally. We have to be clear that a search and seizure can deal with the specific person being searched or their property being searched. Some of the questions often brought up when dealing with search and seizure include: Has a search and or seizure occurred? Did the