The police, acting on a tip that Billy Greenwood was dealing illegal
narcotics, searched some trash bags that he had left on the curb. Actually,
to be more specific, they asked Greenwood's garbage man to set aside his
thrash from the rest of the neighborhood's, then searched it after it was
isolated. Finding paraphernalia associated with drugs in the bags, the
police applied for a search warrant, including a description of the things
they found in the trash. Based on evidence from both the garbage and the
search of the house, Greenwood was convicted of drug-related charges.
Greenwood appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the search of his
garbage was illegal because it was searched without a warrant.
My side of the case, which is the state of California, tends to argue
three main things. First, the exception to the warrant requirement, which is
"searching abandoned property." We also tend to argue two previous court
cases, Oliver vs. US and Katz vs. United States.
In the case Olive vs. US, Oliver had posted no trespassing signs around
his fenced in farm. Two Kentucky State narcotics officers, also acting on a
tip that Oliver was growing narcotics, walked around the fenced in area to
see a field of home-grown marijuana. This case also dealed with the right of
privacy. The courts decided that the police had the right to charge Oliver
because of plain view. In the second case that we are going to argue, which
is Katz vs. United States, "no knock" statutes were defined. These allow
police to forcibly enter a place when no one will let them in and the police
have a reason to believe that a fugitive is hiding out or evidence is being
destroyed. Our last argument has to do with the exclusionary rule. As
stated before, searching abandoned property can be warrant less. The state
of California will rue that garbage, being accessible to children, animals,
and passerby's, can be considered abandoned.
The opposing side may argue the precedent of Mapp vs. Ohio is a reason
why Greenwood's charges should be dropped.
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 carrying. He noticed that the object inside of the bag felt like a hard and heavy object which he believed could potentially be a gun. After looking inside the bag, Officer Nolan found a weapon inside, a .38 caliber handgun to be exact. On the spot, Officer Nolan and Officer Harvey arrested Mr. Wardlow.
There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law, like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact, obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific, this case deals with what is considered obscene, and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth.
The Central Park Jogger case is one of false confessions to a crime, with a little help from police, which the defendants did not commit. Evidence taken at the crime scene did exclude the defendants, however, because of videotaped confessions they were sentenced to prison for a crime they admitted to committing even though they did not. It was not until many years later did the original perpetrator step forward from prison to admit he was the one who committed the crime with evidence (DNA) and firsthand knowledge of the scene. The five original defendants were released from prison but until serving a lengthy term. There are cues that can be noticed when investigators are conducting preliminary interviews that have a very high rate of success in determining the guilt or innocence of an individual. Some of these cues may be verbal such as a rehearsed response (Kassin, 2005). Other types of cues may be nonverbal body language such as a slouching (Kassin, 2005).
As you can see there is no perfect crime. The littlest piece of hair or paint or anything left behind can be found. Suspects often miss these tiny peieces of evidence and while they looked over it, it is still lurking at the crim scene. It is guarenteed that a Crime Scene Investigator will find this evidence no matter how small and use it to find, prosecute, and convict a criminal.
threatened and when this happens local news and internet makes it look as if police are the
someone with a gun, the police might not be able to get there in time to save you, so you
A number of officers, some plain-clothed, Detective Charles Smythe, and Deputy Inspector Seymour Pine showed up at 1:20 am and announced that they were “taking the place.” Having been used to raids in the past, some patrons of the bars tried to escape- only to find that their exits had been blocked. Standard procedure for police raids included female officers performing inspections in the restrooms, in order to confirm that some of the ...
The location of the crime scene and the proximity of the serial murderer’s home is one aspect that law enforcement officials try to establish early
Because police investigators are usually under pressure to arrest criminals and safeguard the community, they often make mistakes. Sometimes, detectives become convinced of a suspect 's guilt because of their criminal history or weak speculations. Once they are convinced, they are less likely to consider alternative possibilities. They overlook some important exculpatory evidence, make weak speculations and look only for links that connect a suspect to a crime, especially if the suspect has a previous criminal record. Picking Cotton provides an understanding of some common errors of the police investigation process. During Ronald Cottons interrogation, the detectives did not bother to record the conversation “But I noticed he wasn 't recording the conversation, so I felt that he could be writing anything down”(79) unlike they did for Jennifer. They had already labelled Ronald Cotton as the perpetrator and they told him during the interrogation “Cotton, Jennifer Thompson already identified you. We know it was you”(82). Jenifer Thompson 's testimony along with Ronald Cotton 's past criminal records gave the detectives more reason to believe Ronald committed the crime. Ronald Cotton stated “ This cop Sully, though, he had already decided I was guilty.”(84). Many investigative process have shortcomings and are breached because the officials in charge make
Reasonable Suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable su...
For this study forensic evidence can be considered DNA evidence and/or trace evidence of any kind, included to but not limited to tire tracks, bullet casings, glass shards, fingerprints, and hair samples. Although this study proposes the idea that forensic evidence is more important it currently is not used frequently in the justice system. A study found that out of the cases they examined forensic evidence was collected in 37% of cases but only 18% of those cases were examined (Peterson, Hickman, Strom, Johnson, 2013). Another study found that 38% of participants said forensic evidence was hard to come by while 62% said they had spent time on victim credibility (Menaker, Campbell, Wells, 2016). This shows us that forensic evidence is not used frequently, and more time is spent on making a victim credible instead of finding evidence. It is the purpose of this study to determine if forensic evidence is more important than circumstantial evidence and eye witness testimony. If this can be determined than less time can be spent on things like victim credibility for testimonies, and more time can be spent on analyzing forensic
Stetser, Merle (2001). The Use of Force in Police Control of Violence: Incidents Resulting in Assaults on Officers. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing L.L.C.
Then comes the step of finding data. Holmes once said, "It is a capital mistake to theorize without data." You should never come up with theories and then try to support them. You must always find facts and then come up with theories. My thoughts are that you go in the wrong direction if you do it ass backwards. Not only will the crime take longer to solve but it also could never be solved.
criminals escape justice, whether it is because of a cold case or botched police work, and hunts
Information about any item, related to the criminal, found at the crime scene (weapons, proofs, if any)