The following investigation is occurring for a fact-finding mission to see if Officer Jones has a sufficient amount of information to qualify for a search warrant, and to proceed with the proper court protocol. As the courts reviewed reports supplied, we feel, as the proper requirements for a search warrant were not met. Even though Mr. Jones has spent over ten years in the drug enforcement sector of law enforcement, it does not qualify him as an expert drug enforcement agent. With the information given, Mr. Jones did not have probable cause. Mr. Jones relied on information from an informant that he did not work with previously. The information included judgment based on the witness seeing a glowing light in the basement, two tanks being brought into the household, and being told that the homeowner has an unlimited amount of marijuana to sell. This information that was told to the informant is speculation, only. …show more content…
Mr. Jones never physically had evidence, just speculation. The evidence that he believes that he saw was through a pair of binoculars and an unproven informant. The information he claimed to see was a bright light and top of a marijuana plant, and did not go into the resident’s home to obtain actual evidence of the marijuana plant. The credibility of the informant is lacking, the informant has not given information before to officers. The informant has given the officers information that he believes he has seen, and not actually been in close contact with besides for the neighbor saying information that may be suspected. This could of confused the informant or been used to confuse and concern them, causing them to tell an officer and become involved into the
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.
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
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.
Facts: On November 2006 the Miami-Dade police department received an anonymous tip that the home of Joelis Jardines was been used to grow marihuana. On December 2006 two detectives along with a trained drug sniffing dog approached Jardines home. At the front door the dog signaled for drugs, as well as the detective who smelled the marihuana coming from inside. Detectives then wrote an affidavit and obtained a search warrant that confirmed the growth of marihuana in Jardine’s home. Jardines was then charged for drug trafficking. Jardines then tried to suppress all evidence and say that in theory during the drug sniffing dog was an illegal search under the 4th amendment. The trial courts then ruled to suppress all evidence, the state appellate courts then appealed and reversed, the standing concluding that there was no illegal search and the dog’s presence did not require a warrant. The Florida supreme court then reverse the appellate court’s decision and concluded that a dog sniffing a home for investigativ...
All of these dealers claimed they were innocent, but one particular defense attorney, Cynthia Barbare, took her client, Jose Luis Vega, at his word. He claimed to be an honest auto mechanic and the dirt under his fingernails led her to believe him. Plus, she found it odd that a reportedly wealthy drug trafficker lived in such a meager home. Her first line of defense was simply requesting that the drug lab test the veracity of the drugs. None of the prior dealers from Alonso’s cases had done so because the Dallas county court system unofficially penalized anyone who requested verification from the drug lab with a much lengthier sentence. The courts had simply relied upon the officers’ field tests. Ultimately, Barbare’s gutsy choice paid off
Circumstantial evidence is not necessarily bad in it of itself, however when the state relies mostly on circumstantial evidence to lock someone away for life plus thirty years and especially when their only circumstantial testimony is riddled with holes, it is simply unfair to lock someone up based on Jay’s inconsistent, ever-changing testimony.
On July 11th, 1975 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin a doctor by the name of Lester V. Salinsky, performed a surgery on the plaintiff, James Johnson. The surgery was took place at Misericordia Community Hospital (Misericordia), defendant, by Dr. Salinsky. Dr. Salinsky was scheduled to remove a pin fragment from the plaintiff’s right hip. However, “during the course of this surgery, the plaintiff’s common femoral nerve and artery were damaged causing a permanent paralytic condition of his right thigh muscles with resultant atrophy and weakness and loss of function” (Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital, n.d.). The plaintiff filed suit against Dr. Salinksy and Misericorida on October 13th, 1976, fifteen months after his unsuccessful surgery, which
On June 26, 2006, a Sheriff Officer of the State of Florida, William Wheetley and his drug detection dog, Aldo, were on patrol. Furthermore, Officer Wheetley conducted a traffic stop of the defendant Clayton Harris for expired tags on his truck. As Officer Wheetley approached the truck, he noticed that Harris was acting nervous/anxious, more than he should have, and he also noticed an open can of beer in the cup holder next to him. At that moment, Officer Wheetley knew that he was hiding something, he requested to search
The Supreme Court used this evidence, and the fact that the pants and the blood had been transported to the crime lab in the same box, and that a vial and a quarter of autopsy blood were missing, to rule that, if known by the jury, could have created reasonable doubt (House V. Bell, 2006). This, along with the evidence, presented by House, that Mr. Muncey had a history of spousal abuse against Mrs. Muncey, and the fact that he had fabricated an alibi to cover his whereabouts for the time of the murder, could have created a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, had it been presented at trial (House v. Bell, 2006). It was with these facts in mind that the Supreme Court reached a final ruling in this case. The Court’s final ruling was that while House had not presented sufficient evidence to exonerate himself completely, he did present enough evidence to create the question of his actual guilt, and warranted a new trial (House v. Bell, 2006).
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...
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
FACTS OF THE CASE: Police, suspecting that the defendant, Kyllo, was growing substantial amounts of marijuana inside his unit of a triplex residence, scanned the units from outside by means of a device that measured heat signatures. This provided information on the amount of heat originating within the residence. The thermal scan revealed that a portion of Kyllo’s roof and wall had higher temperatures relative to other areas of the building, being
As it was found out later, the arrest was the result of the false report provided by the man who claimed that Lawrence possessed weapons at his home. The report was filed by the neighbor Roger David Nance (41 years old) and he has already been accused before for the similar complaints. The above cause to enter the house, however, was not considered to be the issue in the case hearing and Nance admitted that he provided false report.
Lyman, D. Michael; Criminal Investigation, The Art and Science; 3rd edition, 2002 Prentice Hall. Pgs. 188-200.
All we have in this case is circumstantial evidence that potentially could send Mr. Joe to jail