Breaking Bad Extra Credit Question 1 - In season 3, episode 6, Hank follows Jesse to a junkyard where he finds the RV he has been desperately looking for. Hank attempts to pry the door open when Old Joe, the owner of the junkyard, asks Hank to see a warrant. Hank says that he has probable cause to search, meaning a warrant is not necessary. Old Joe makes the point that probable cause relates to vehicles and claims that an RV is not actually a vehicle. Hank points out the wheels and claims that it is a vehicle. With all of this said, a.) Who is right? After this episode, the average person might have been fooled into believing Old Joe. It is easy to begin to believe him because his points seem valid. However, anyone who is familiar with a certain court case we learned this semester, would know that an RV is considered more of a vehicle than it is a dwelling. Hank had probable cause to believe that there was evidence or contraband in the RV because he not followed Jesse there, but it also matched the description of the one he was searching for. Hank did not need a warrant to search the RV, proving that he was correct. …show more content…
Hank is correct because the RV is readily mobile. Jesse could have turned the key and drove off at any point, which creates a diminished expectation of privacy in the RV. Although Jesse claimed, "This is my own private domicile and I will not be harassed.", the location of the RV did not allow any evidence of it being a dwelling. The RV was stationary in a place not regularly used for residential
Under the California Penal Code, officers are granted permission to search Johnson under the conditions of his probation. While acting upon this, they discovered multiple areas of the house in which controlled substances were hidden. Officers argued that by searching Johnson without a warrant, they prevented the potential destruction of evidence.
The police responded to a tip that a home was being used to sell drugs. When they arrived at the home, Gant answered the door and stated that he expected the owner to return home later. The officers left and did a record check of Gant and found that his driver’s license had been suspended and there was a warrant for his arrest. The officers returned to the house later that evening and Gant wasn’t there. Gant returned shortly and was recognized by officers. He parked at the end of the driveway and exited his vehicle and was placed under arrest 10 feet from his car and was placed in the back of the squad car immediately. After Gant was secured, two officers searched his car and found a gun and a bag of cocaine.
In July 2003, Sheriff’s Deputy Todd Shanks of Multnomah County Oregon was performing a routine traffic stop on a vehicle driven by William Barrett. During this stop, Shanks arrested Barrett because of an outstanding warrant and then searched the car. A pressure-cooker found in the trunk was believed to be used in the making of methamphetamine. Barrett informed Shanks that the owner of the pressure-cooker was “Gunner Crapser,” and that he could be found at the Econolodge Motel in a room registered to a woman named Summer Twilligear (FindLaw, 2007, Factual and Procedural Background section, para. 2). Deputy Shanks quickly learned that there was an outstanding warrant for a “Gunner Crapser” but to not confuse the wanted man, whose name was not actually “Gunner Crapser,” with someone else using this name.
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
In this paper I will be discussing the Carroll doctrine. The range of the Carroll doctrine, and the basis of the doctrine. In this doctrine a cop has to have probable cause. This doctrine also falls under the Fourth Amendment. I will be informing you on what the law considers a readily automobile, what the officer will determine is a home, and when a home is a vehicle.
found behind the guest house was proven by DNA testing to have O.J.'s blood and
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued
When he goes to the Round House, Joe brings his friends Cappy, Angus, and Zack to see if they can find any evidence the police may not have found. Before his friends arrive, Joe thinks through the crime and is able to find the gas can that the attacker left behind. Joe swims out into the lake and is able to find the gas can, which is “evidence” he brings home to his father. There is also a cooler of beer and a set of old stained clothes he brings to his father’s attention and to the
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
Similarly, in the case R v PACE and another (2014) , Pace and Rogers worked at a scrap metal yard and purchased items from individuals who suggested they were stolen. The sellers were undercover police officers and the property belonged to the police. The pair was convicted of offences under Section 327 of POCA, however the court of appeal quashed the conviction on the grounds that a person would not be guilty of the substantive 327 offence if the property in question was not criminal, even if the person believed it to be criminal property at the time.
The differentiation between open fields and private property must be made before one can proceed to form an opinion regarding the constitutionality of a warrantless search of an open field. Oliver v. United States is a case in which police officers, acting on reports from neighbors that a patch of marijuana was being cultivated on the Oliver farm, entered on to private property ignoring “No Trespassing” signs, and on to a secluded open portion of the Oliver property without a warrant, discovered the marijuana patch and then arrested Oliver without an arrest warrant. The Maine Judicial Court held that “No Trespassing” signs posted around the Oliver property “evinced a reasonable expectation of privacy,” and therefore the court held that the “open fields” doctrine was not applicable to the Oliver case.
Ethan Couch grew up with parents who did not teach him the proper differences between right and wrong. They spoiled him with anything that he could ever want because they were wealthy. Unfortunately, because of this he did not hear the word no being used often when it came to things he wanted. These were some of the defenses used in court against declaring that the actions of Ethan Couch on the night of the accident that he caused while drunk was not his fault. His parents had allowed him to live at his house, that was meant to be sold, alone. He was with a group of his friends and they were drunk and all of them decided to get in a car drunk and drive. This resulted in a mass car accident killing few, but injuring many.
Intention to commit an offense (Dave entering boat house without permission to steal Sam’s boat).
I truly believe that the filmmaker ambiguity was intentional because the filmmaker wanted his audience to come to their own conclusion that if Arnold and Jesse were guilty as charged. But the filmmaker made did it clear that Arnold was guilty to sexual abuse weather it was on the original charges or based of what Arnold had done in the past. The way he portrayed the Great Neck community as a wealthy community, united and that no crime ever happened there, of course, it would make you think that the Friedmans were a disgrace to their community because now they were outcast of what their community was about. The film left me frustrated because it was based on all hearsay and not on actual facts and also it did not show more information of
In the 1980’s legal tension involving police searches was a direct result of the war on drugs campaign. Officers were encouraged to stop and seize or search suspicious vehicles to put a halt on drug trafficking (Harns, 1998). But placing this aggressive approach into effect had many negative outcomes. One problem was that it put police on a thin line with the constitutional laws. To no surprise, pretty much no data estimating how often police searches fall outside constitutional laws exist. Only cases that catch the courts attention are logged into the record books. A case study held in “Middleberg” on suspect searches reports that 70 of the 86 searches didn’t result in arrest; citations weren’t presented nor were any charges filed. Just about all of the unconstitutional searches, 31 out of 34, weren’t reported to the courts, nor were they intended to be reported.