Many cases have different circumstances, which makes it difficult to use one test to indicate if evidence is reliable. In the case of Illinois versus Gates, many of the Justices agreed to adopt the totality of circumstances standard for several reasons. Due to the simple fact that it is important to make sure evidence is being obtained from a trustworthy person, in this case specifically. They agreed that the “totality of circumstances” should be used since it is a more fluid concept instead of the “two-pronged test” which is strict. Having a fluid test, makes it easier to allow it to assist with many different scenarios. The anonymous letter is not an everyday piece of evidence that there are applicable tests that can be to use to make sure the anonymous letter is acceptable to use. …show more content…
The totality of circumstances standard, will balance the results to see if the letter is applicable to use as reliable evidence since it is more consistent with our treatment of probable cause. You have to have credible evidence in other to consider probable cause to search someone’s home or property. This is why the totality of circumstances was adopted because it is easy to get distracted and do actions that will cause the evidence to be denied. Both tests are focused on the “veracity” or “reliability” and the “basis of knowledge”, but the two-pronged test is inflexible in comparison to the totality of circumstances. The two-pronged test doesn’t allow untraditional access of evidence to be equally examined. It is a black and white test that doesn’t create any room for gray areas, which makes it difficult to use for untraditional situations. Lastly, the Justices noticed how the warrant was still unjustified even after adopting the totality of circumstances test. This showed how the anonymous letter was still a questionable piece of evidence and if the search was still warranted.
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.
This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.
Also another fact one of the justices, Justice O’Connor disagreed with the outcome of the case. She said it was called a, “Cursory Inspection” she went on saying the officers could do the search based on reasonable suspicion that the object was evidence of a criminal activity.
Hicks is like the search of Justin Meyers home conducted by police in the fictional case in the text book. In both searches police were in the defendant’s homes and were searching for specific items, and during that search items were found that implicated the defendants in other crimes. There are several differences between the two cases. First, the severity of the crimes. Hicks’s case involved the theft of stereo equipment, while Myers case involved murder. Second, the search of Hicks home did not include a search warrant, and in Meyers case the police did have a search warrant. In Myers case, police had a lawful search warrant to search for drugs and drug paraphernalia. During that search police located a bloody rag, which was sent for testing. The results of this test revealed the blood belonged to a murder victim, implicating Myers for suspicion of murder. Although the police did have a search warrant, the warrant only listed drugs, and paraphernalia. This arises several questions. First where was the bloody rag found? Second, did the police have probable cause that Meyers was under suspicion of murder? Or was it simply a case of reasonable suspicion? In my opinion the results of the tests performed on the bloody rag found in Meyers case should not be admissible since Myers was not under suspicion of murder, and the bloody rag was not included in the lawful search warrant. The search is not considered legal, and not covered under the plain site doctrine. Myer’s fourth amendment protection against illegal search and seizure was violated by testing the bloody
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
The logic used by the Court in order to justify their conclusion is fraught with weak reasoning and dangerous interpretations of the Constitution. It violates the precedent set in Miranda and seems tainted with a desire to justify consent searches at any cost. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte is a decidedly pro-order case because it qualifies another excuse police can raise to search a citizen, but it is also dangerous because it shows that the Court is not the unbiased referee between liberty and democracy that it should be.
3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
This was where the Missouri Supreme Court then ruled that the case of Schmerber v. California “requires more than mere dissipation of blood-alcohol evidence to support a warrantless blood draw.” Based on this ruling the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear this case so as to resolve the split between the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals and the state courts. The Court decided that there are three categorical search warrant exceptions: search incident to arrest, the motor vehicle arrest, and consent. The Court also decided however that searches without warrants performed under threat of imminent destruction of evidence can only be exempt upon examination of the circumstances surrounding the search. So because McNeely’s blood-draw was performed under non-emergency circumstances it was a violation of his “right to be free from unreasonable searches of his person.” My thought is if all that needed to exist to prove an exigent situation was injury requiring medical evaluation then the requirement of “special circumstance” could have been fulfilled if he had tripped on his shoe lace during one of his four field sobriety
In examining the military history, one can easily find out that the main role of military leaders in the field is to decrease confusion and to guide units to achieve the desired end state. In accomplishing these tasks, Situational Understanding and Visualization have become necessary steps especially in today’s complex environment. This importance legitimates the question about their relationship between these two steps and the challenges facing leaders to achieve situational understanding and visualization. Commander’s visualization depends on Situational understanding. Leader’s success in these two phases remains conditioned by overcoming some challenges related to his bias, time and the efficiency of his staff.
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.
The “reasonable man/police officer” test is an important tool used in the U.S Supreme Court system.
The 1960s was a period well remembered for all the civil rights movements that occurred during that time frame and the impact these movements had on the social and political dynamics of the United States. The three largest movements that were striving in the 1960s were the African American civil rights movement, the New Left movement and the feminist movement. These three movements were in a lot of ways influenced by each other and were very similar in terms of their goals and strategies. However, within each of these movements there were divisions in the way they tried to approach the issues they were fighting against. Looking at each of these movements individually will reveal the relationship they all share as well as the changes that were brought forth as a result of each groups actions.
Over the years the way law enforcement officers have been able to investigate cases has been drastically changed over the years. Investigations used to be a very prying, and vindictive matter. Now it is very delicate. Since the Miranda case, law enforcement has been very open and aware of defendants’ rights.
Constraint also referred as bottleneck are those paint points or the link that is weakest in the process of the organization which may slow down or hamper the smooth running of the entire organization. As rightly said by Goldratt ”organizational performance is dictated by constraints”. Constraints are the restrictions that prevent an organization from maximizing its performance and achieving its goals. Constraints can involve people, supplies, information, equipment, or even policies, and can be internal or external to an organization. Constraints can be categorized in one of the following categories: behavioral, managerial, capacity, market, and logistical each having its own impact on the smooth operation of the organization. For instance,
This statement is required for police officers to search and seized a home, vehicle or a property. The officers, when writing an affidavit need to note facts while supporting their facts with probable cause. If the person writing the affidavit provided false information and continues with the affidavit process he or she can face harsh consequences. The information that the affidavit contains is based with facts and knowledge about what was discovered at Bobby’s home as well as what was heard, said, and or seen. The officers observation of criminal activity or any suspicious would be added. No opinions will be written down unless they are statements or comments made by the suspects. Relevant information will be provided as well as information that will persuade the judge to provide the officers with a search warrant. By the end of the affidavit a conclusion should be reach based on the facts provided from the home. For example, address, name of the suspects, case number, occupation, immigration status, the identification of the person writing the statement and all the facts found, seen or heard, like, drugs, weapons, and any statement made by the suspects. After that a signature will be included and notary would be