More handpicked essays just for you.
About the criminal justice system
About the criminal justice system
The American justice system and how it is unfair
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: About the criminal justice system
In the case, whereas, Stacey is a suspect in an embezzlement investigation; the police believes she is hiding evidence in her neighbor’s home. Yes, law enforcement officer can obtain a search, under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, police may engage in "reasonable" searches and seizures. (FindLaw, 2017) However, the police must obtain a warrant of an affidavit for probable cause from a judge. The officer in Stacey’s case had the reason of suspicion to believe Stacey was hiding evidence upon being investigated. Depended on the exigent circumstances a search may be conducted with or without a warrant. The fact that Stacey’s neighbor refuses to consent, the officer will have to obtain a search warrant. The police may not perform a warrantless search anywhere a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy unless one of the warrant exceptions applies. (FindLaw, 2017) In Stacey’s case, the law enforcement officers must act quickly to prevent the destruction of evidence, and the successful flight of the suspect. "Warrantless searches that occur when exigent circumstances exist are valid" (Hall, 2014, p. ) If Stacey’s neighbor does not have a private investment in the items or evidence, the police can take them into custody and, in effect, no "search" has occurred.
On July 15th 2008, Caylee Anthony was reported missing by her grandmother, Cindy, who claimed that she had not seen her granddaughter in 31 days. Cindy called the police after picking up her daughter Casey’s impounded vehicle, which smelled strongly of a decomposing body. Cindy found a bag of garbage in the trunk of Casey’s car but no trace of a body. Cindy had attempted to contact and visit Caylee over the past month, but Casey Anthony refused visitation, claiming that Caylee was with a nanny named Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez, or at the beach or parks. Casey had given Cindy various explanations as to Caylee’s whereabouts before finally telling her mother that she had not seen Caylee for multiple weeks.
The Jonbenet Ramsey case has remained unsolved for twenty years now, and I realize, it might not ever be solved, but I do have a theory. My theory involves three different things, the build up, the murder and the cover-up. In the end, I do not think that there was an intruder that broke in the house, the evidence just doesn’t add up to that. I feel as if somebody in the family killed her, and the Ramseys covered it up. If you go even deeper, John Ramsey could have compensated John Mark Karr to take the blame, and to get some of all of the post-murder weight off of his chest. In order to find who killed J.B.R., we have to look into the Ramseys’ lives first. We know that the Ramseys had money, a lot of it. And the odd amount of money in the ransom note just doesn’t make any
A warranted search is per say reasonable. Officers may then employ various reasonable means of obtaining the information, e.g. search the content of U.S. mail, one’s house or office, or deploy an undercover agent as in Lewis v. United States (1966). They may, without need for physical intrusion as under the archaic trespass doctrine, utilize modern surveillance methods, such as electronic eavesdropping as in Lopez v. United States (1963) or heat signatures. (Solove and Schwartz 83) Under the third party doctrine, officers may obtain information that you voluntarily provide to your bank, accountant, ISP or e-mail provider as per United States v. Forrester (2008). (Ibid 197; 199) Conversely, “a warrantless search is generally considered to be per se unreasonable.” (Ibid 99) As noted in Katz v. United States (1967), “‘the mandate of the [Fourth] Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes,’ and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable…” (Ibid 99) Fail to meet any of the four elements and the warrant does not meet constitutional muster (see Berger v. New York (1967) wherein officers failed to stop surveillance at
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
A search and seizure by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is present. Such a search or seizure is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, and evidence obtained from the unlawful search may not be introduced in court.
The Fourth (IV) Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses paper, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (U.S Constitution, Fourth Amendment, Legal Information Institute). The fourth amendment is a delicate subject and there is a fine line between the fourth amendment and 'unreasonable search and seizure. '
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
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 and identified himself. He told police that the owner of the house was not home but was coming back later that evening. Police later discovered that Rodney Gant had a warrant for his arrest for driving with a suspended license. The officers came back to the home later that evening and arrested two individuals. After both individuals were handcuffed and placed in the back of patrol cars, Gant pulled up at the house driving a vehicle. When he stepped out of his car, he was arrested for driving with a suspended license. After Gant was handcuffed and placed in the back of a third patrol car, officers proceeded to search Gant’s car. During their search they found a gun in the car and a bag of cocaine in a jacket pocket laying on the backseat of the car Gant was driving. Gant was charged with possession of the cocaine. He fought to have the evidence found in his car suppressed at trial because, he claimed, the search of his car had been unreasonable. Gant’s motion was denied and Gant was convicted...
The Supreme Court has held that vehicle searches are permitted if the arrestee is unsecured and is reaching distance from the passenger compartment or if the vehicle would have evidenced related to the arrest. Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 999 (2014). Searches based on information received from a seized cell phone must be permitted by warrant. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009).
This action applies to conduct by government officials such as police, firemen, or an individual hired as a private actor by the government. After the first criterion has been met, the court must determine whether a search or seizure has occurred. A search is defined as the physical or technological invasion of an area deemed by the majority of the court to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These places could be homes or a closed telephone booth, depending on the circumstances of the incident. A seizure occurs when the government takes one's personal belongings or the individual themselves.
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.
Patty Hearst was a normal 19 year old girl, living in an apartment with her fiance and attending university in Berkeley, California, until one day her life, and the lives of everyone around her changed forever. On the evening of February 4, 1974, some members of the left-wing radical group called the Symbionese Liberation Army barged into Hearst’s home armed with guns, and beat up her fiance before kidnapping Hearst and bringing her to their house where she was kept blindfolded in a closet for 59 days. While locked in the closet, Patty Hearst was verbally and sexually abused and she was denied the use of even a toilet or toothbrush if she didn’t tell them that she agreed with the group’s ideas and beliefs. It is believed that while being locked in the closet like this, Patty was being brainwashed by the SLA and that she may have even developed Stockholm Syndrome, a condition in which a person who was kidnapped starts to empathise with their captor, and even starts defending them. This is how the Symbionese Liberation Army convinced Patty Hearst to join their group. They released an audio tape to the public in which Patty Hearst said she was changing her name to Tania and that she had decided to join the SLA. She then helped the SLA rob a bank and steal an ammunition belt from a sports store. After this, she started travelling around the country with two members of the SLA named John and Emily Harris, to try avoid being captured by the police. During this time, the police found a house where some members of the SLA were hiding out. Attempts to make the SLA members surrender ended up in a massive gunfight, ultimately ending up in the deaths of 6 SLA members. The FBI eventually found and arrested Patty Hearst on September 18, 1975. T...
The Constitution of the United States of America protects people’s rights because it limits the power of government against its people. Those rights guaranteed in the Constitution are better known as the Bill of Rights. Within these rights, the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures […]” (Knetzger & Muraski, 2008). According to the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be issued before a search and seizure takes place. However, consent for lawful search is one of the most common exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
Depending on what study is read, the incidence of false confession is less than 35 per year, up to 600 per year. That is a significant variance in range, but no matter how it is evaluated or what numbers are calculated, the fact remains that false confessions are a reality. Why would an innocent person confess to a crime that she did not commit? Are personal factors, such as age, education, and mental state, the primary reason for a suspect to confess? Are law enforcement officers and their interrogation techniques to blame for eliciting false confessions? Regardless of the stimuli that lead to false confessions, society and the justice system need to find a solution to prevent the subsequent aftermath.
How does the law that affects search and seizures pertain to arson investigations? There are two major court cases that we should look at. First, we will give a little background on the Michigan v Tyler case and the Michigan v. Clifford case. In Michigan v. Tyler a court case that was decided in 1978. On January 21, 1970, a fire started in a furniture store, the fire department responded and began working. Later a plastic container with flammable liquids was found and reported as possible arson. The chief did like any other and had an investigator come in and began investigating. Well, the smoke and steam became too much so the investigation stopped. Later, the investigation started again after everyone had left