Breaking Bad Extra Credit Question 1 - In season 3, episode 6, Hank follows Jesse to a junkyard where he finds the RV he has been desperately looking for. Hank attempts to pry the door open when Old Joe, the owner of the junkyard, asks Hank to see a warrant. Hank says that he has probable cause to search, meaning a warrant is not necessary. Old Joe makes the point that probable cause relates to vehicles and claims that an RV is not actually a vehicle. Hank points out the wheels and claims that it is a vehicle. With all of this said, a.) Who is right? After this episode, the average person might have been fooled into believing Old Joe. It is easy to begin to believe him because his points seem valid. However, anyone who is familiar with a certain court case we learned this semester, would know that an RV is considered more of a vehicle than it is a dwelling. Hank had probable cause to believe that there was evidence or contraband in the RV because he not followed Jesse there, but it also matched the description of the one he was searching for. Hank did not need a warrant to search the RV, proving that he was correct. …show more content…
Hank is correct because the RV is readily mobile. Jesse could have turned the key and drove off at any point, which creates a diminished expectation of privacy in the RV. Although Jesse claimed, "This is my own private domicile and I will not be harassed.", the location of the RV did not allow any evidence of it being a dwelling. The RV was stationary in a place not regularly used for residential
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.
In this paper I will be discussing the Carroll doctrine. The range of the Carroll doctrine, and the basis of the doctrine. In this doctrine a cop has to have probable cause. This doctrine also falls under the Fourth Amendment. I will be informing you on what the law considers a readily automobile, what the officer will determine is a home, and when a home is a vehicle.
found behind the guest house was proven by DNA testing to have O.J.'s blood and
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
On December 2,2015 I went to to the Lynnhaven building to receive some feedback on my agreement paper for English 111. It was a very rainy day after running through the rain when I reached the writing center room. There was a yellow note saying that the writing center was in the student center until December 4,2015. After reading the note I ran back in the rain to my car.It was to cold to walk it was raining. As I approached the student center I was told by a security guard that the tutoring lab was located on the third floor. I had walked up three flights of stairs. When I had finally reached the third floor,I walk into the tutoring lab. There were about eight tables, but only four staff members and one student. Amen had approached me asking what did I need help with today. I replied saying that I would like some feedback on my paper for English. He then pointed to the writing table and said “she can assist you with your paper”.
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.
Ethan Couch grew up with parents who did not teach him the proper differences between right and wrong. They spoiled him with anything that he could ever want because they were wealthy. Unfortunately, because of this he did not hear the word no being used often when it came to things he wanted. These were some of the defenses used in court against declaring that the actions of Ethan Couch on the night of the accident that he caused while drunk was not his fault. His parents had allowed him to live at his house, that was meant to be sold, alone. He was with a group of his friends and they were drunk and all of them decided to get in a car drunk and drive. This resulted in a mass car accident killing few, but injuring many.
One of the major court decisions for the “Search Incident to Arrest” was Gant vs. Arizona. Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended driving license. When the police officers arrested him and had him hand cuffed in the back seat of the police car, they then did a search on his vehicle. The police then didn’t have a reason to think there were illegal things in his car just from driving with a suspended license. The search warrant to arrest states that a police officer may conduct a warrantless search if there are any suspensions found within the area. In Gant versus Arizona this was not the case. The police officer had no reason to search Rodney’s car just because he had a suspended drivers license. As the police officer was searching the car he found cocaine in a jacket pocket in the back seat. A previous case ruling such as New York versus Belton, they had made the bright-line rule. The bright-line says that a police can search the compartment on the passenger side of a vehicle or any containers that are within the reach or “grabbing area” of the arrestee. Later over the years there was another court casing, Thornton versus United States. During the courts ruling they had changed the Belton rule again. It now said that the police cannot pursue a warrantless search if the arrestee is secured and locked up in a police car and has no access to the inside of the vehicle. After hearing the revised rule, the court did not give up. In the final courts ruling, a police can still perform a warrantless search only if there is any reason to believe there is other crime related evidence in the vehicle. Since the time of Gants arrest the police had no suspicions to conduct a warrantless search because of a suspended driving license, Gant
In July 2003, Sheriff’s Deputy Todd Shanks of Multnomah County Oregon was performing a routine traffic stop on a vehicle driven by William Barrett. During this stop, Shanks arrested Barrett because of an outstanding warrant and then searched the car. A pressure-cooker found in the trunk was believed to be used in the making of methamphetamine. Barrett informed Shanks that the owner of the pressure-cooker was “Gunner Crapser,” and that he could be found at the Econolodge Motel in a room registered to a woman named Summer Twilligear (FindLaw, 2007, Factual and Procedural Background section, para. 2). Deputy Shanks quickly learned that there was an outstanding warrant for a “Gunner Crapser” but to not confuse the wanted man, whose name was not actually “Gunner Crapser,” with someone else using this name.
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
When he goes to the Round House, Joe brings his friends Cappy, Angus, and Zack to see if they can find any evidence the police may not have found. Before his friends arrive, Joe thinks through the crime and is able to find the gas can that the attacker left behind. Joe swims out into the lake and is able to find the gas can, which is “evidence” he brings home to his father. There is also a cooler of beer and a set of old stained clothes he brings to his father’s attention and to the
Intention to commit an offense (Dave entering boat house without permission to steal Sam’s boat).
I truly believe that the filmmaker ambiguity was intentional because the filmmaker wanted his audience to come to their own conclusion that if Arnold and Jesse were guilty as charged. But the filmmaker made did it clear that Arnold was guilty to sexual abuse weather it was on the original charges or based of what Arnold had done in the past. The way he portrayed the Great Neck community as a wealthy community, united and that no crime ever happened there, of course, it would make you think that the Friedmans were a disgrace to their community because now they were outcast of what their community was about. The film left me frustrated because it was based on all hearsay and not on actual facts and also it did not show more information of
Similarly, in the case R v PACE and another (2014) , Pace and Rogers worked at a scrap metal yard and purchased items from individuals who suggested they were stolen. The sellers were undercover police officers and the property belonged to the police. The pair was convicted of offences under Section 327 of POCA, however the court of appeal quashed the conviction on the grounds that a person would not be guilty of the substantive 327 offence if the property in question was not criminal, even if the person believed it to be criminal property at the time.
In the 1980’s legal tension involving police searches was a direct result of the war on drugs campaign. Officers were encouraged to stop and seize or search suspicious vehicles to put a halt on drug trafficking (Harns, 1998). But placing this aggressive approach into effect had many negative outcomes. One problem was that it put police on a thin line with the constitutional laws. To no surprise, pretty much no data estimating how often police searches fall outside constitutional laws exist. Only cases that catch the courts attention are logged into the record books. A case study held in “Middleberg” on suspect searches reports that 70 of the 86 searches didn’t result in arrest; citations weren’t presented nor were any charges filed. Just about all of the unconstitutional searches, 31 out of 34, weren’t reported to the courts, nor were they intended to be reported.