Defendant V. Case Brief

1595 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Reasonable suspicion in Tennessee law enforcement

This matter comes before the Court regarding the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress evidence from an illegal search and seizure of the Defendant’s person and his vehicle on June 28, 2017.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Defendant was arrested as a result of a prostitution sting conducted by the Franklin Police department on June 28, 2017. According to the body microphone of Detective Kroeger, Franklin Police officers observed the Defendant drop off a woman later identified as Elizabeth Hernandez at 1505 Landings Drive, Franklin, Tennessee on June 28, 2017. Ms. Hernandez had previously agreed to meet an undercover officer for sexual activity in exchange for money. Ms. Hernandez had previously stated to the undercover officer that she would be transported to and from the location by her boyfriend, later identified as the Defendant. Police observed the Defendant drop off Ms. Hernandez and arrested her, charging her with Prostitution. Officers then conducted a traffic stop as Defendant exited the apartment complex. Immediately the officers noticed the smell of burnt marijuana coming from the vehicle. The …show more content…

Defendant asserts that reasonable suspicion is a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the subject of criminal activity. State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215, 218 (Tenn. 2000). Defendant contends that the State must produce more than just a “hunch” of suspecting criminal activity, and that, at the time the Officers conducted the traffic stop of the defendant, they did not meet the standard of reasonable suspicion in order to detain him. Defendant hinges the argument on the assertion that police had no way of possessing reasonable suspicion that the handgun or the drugs were in the car at the time of the

Show More
Related

  • State V Marshall Case Study

    1625 Words  | 4 Pages

    Facts: On July 29,2003 Detective Jason Leavitt was doing his usually undercover work, dressed in all black with twenty on dollar bill hanging out his pocket. Leavitt was then approached by the Miller (defendant) asking him for money. The detective refused to give him the money, in return the appellant put his arm around the detective’s neck taking the cash out of his front pocket. The arrest time the pulled up and took Miller into custody and charged him with larceny. Miller was convicted, and sentenced by the district courts to spend up to thirty two months, but no less than 12 months in jail.

    Read More

  • arizona v. grant

    599 Words  | 2 Pages

    The issue that this case raises, is whether or not the officers had the right to search the car of a person who they just arrested, while the person is handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car?

    Read More

  • Florida versus Jardines

    592 Words  | 2 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Case Brief On Bland V. Roberts

    607 Words  | 2 Pages

    Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.

    Read More

  • Georgia Vs. Randolph Case Study

    1227 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Illinois vs Wardlow

    1426 Words  | 3 Pages

    At the time of trial, Mr. Wardlow tried to suppress the handgun as evidence due to the fact that he believed the gun had been seized under an unlawful stop and frisk that violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring a showing of probable cause in order to obtain a warrant before conducting such searches. “In a trial motion to suppress the gun, Wardlow claimed that in order to stop an individual, short of actually arresting the person, police first had to point to ‘specific reasonable inferences’ why the stop was necessary.”(Oyez, 2000) Recognizing that an investigati...

    Read More

  • Schmerber V. California Case Analysis

    1279 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Court held that because of the “special facts” the “attempt to secure evidence of blood-alcohol content in this case was an appropriate incident to petitioner’s arrest.” Under current jurisprudence, we would construe the language about “special facts” as relating to the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment – which resists categorical rules – and instead focuses on the need for the intrusion and the availability of a warrant. However, the language also justifies the search as “incident to petitioner’s arrest,” which would indicate that the test was upheld as a search incident-to-arrest. In situations where it is appropriate, that has been described as a “categorical” exception to the warrant requirement that does not require any case-by-case

    Read More

  • The Casey Anthony Trial: The Trial Of O. J. Simpson

    1077 Words  | 3 Pages

    Reasonable doubt plays a significant role in this particular case, as it requires a standard of unsurpassable evidence in order to be able to convict the plaintiff in a criminal proceeding. This is required under the Due Process Section in the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution, allowing a safeguard and circumvention

    Read More

  • Arizona vs Gant: The Fourth Ammendment and Search Warrants

    960 Words  | 2 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Final Project for Criminal Evidence and Procedures

    2001 Words  | 5 Pages

    From a trial strategy point of view, you always start with the piece(s) of evidence you believe are most damaging to the client's case and work backwards looking for an exploitable flaw in the search and seizure procedure that would make that or those item(s) inadmissible. The further back in the series of events you can argue a fatal flaw, the more likely that the evidence and any additional materials which flowed from that particular item of evidence will be excluded. This is the practical analysis of all the times we see or hear of law enforcement arguing that there was some technical item which drew their attention and suspicion and justifies their hunch that criminal activity is afoot.

    Read More

  • Missouri V. Mcneely Case Summary

    1957 Words  | 4 Pages

    The State based the argument on the reasoning of an earlier case, Arizona v. Gant, which created an addition to the search incident-to-arrest exception regarding vehicles. In Gant the Court held that when held that when a suspect is arrested in a motor vehicle, a search of that vehicle is constitutional as a search incident-to-arrest when “it is ‘reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the

    Read More

  • Austin Heim vs US Government

    1090 Words  | 3 Pages

    Given then that the Government obtained Mr. Heim’s emails with a court order and not a warrant based on a showing of probable cause as is required,22 the Government violated Mr. Heim’s rights to privacy with their search. Therefore, his motion must be granted and the emails obtained this way suppressed as evidence at trial.

    Read More

  • The Case Of Missouri V. Mcneely

    1593 Words  | 4 Pages

    In the case of Missouri v. McNeely the offender Tyler McNeely was arrested upon the suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. These suspicions were further supported by McNeely’s failure to pass four field-sobriety tests. He refused the preliminary Breathalyzer test both in the field and after arriving at the police station. He was then taken to a hospital where he was subjected to a nonconsensual evidentiary blood draw. The test was performed 23 minutes after the initial traffic stop and tested for a blood-alcohol concentration over the legal

    Read More

  • Pretrial Brief

    1511 Words  | 4 Pages

    as decisive inferences complying with NJ law to validate his position, in contrast with the

    Read More

  • Arizona V. Hicks Summary

    695 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

More about Defendant V. Case Brief

Open Document