This case pertains to an appellee’s Fourth Amendment privacy rights against warrantless search and seizure. (C.R. 8, Order). On August 15, 2016, a masked intruder, wearing a Captain Jack Sparrow mask, dark clothing and gloves, broke into a Waco art gallery. (C.R. 8-9, Order ¶ 1, 4). In the process of committing the robbery, the masked intruder murdered a security guard with an unidentified long and heavy blunt object. (C.R. 9, Order ¶ 3) The masked intruder ultimate plundered over $100,000 in goods from the gallery, among which notably included a thirty-inch silver and brass candelabra. (C.R. 9, Order ¶ 5). The only evidence from the crime scene which could possibly yield information as to the masked intruder’s identity was grainy footage, …show more content…
Id. In contrast with the prior two visits, where it was clear that no one was home, on this visit the detectives heard voices and music coming from inside the Archer residence so they decided to knock and announce themselves even though Archer’s pick-up truck was not present. Id. The Detectives were greeted by pajama-clad Cheryl T. Johnson (“Johnson”), a neighbor of Archer’s, who stated that Archer was not home.. (C.R. 10-11, Order ¶ 9-10). Johnson told the detectives that she has a key to Archer’s house to “feed his cat and bring in the mail when he’s out of town” and that she is currently crashing at Archer’s house without his knowledge because her house’s A/C condenser had blown out earlier in the day. (C.R. 10-11, Order ¶ 10-11). The detectives proceeded to ask Johnson if she knew where Archer was, to which Johnson responded that she thought he was working although she did not exactly what Archer does or who he works for. (C.R. 11, Order ¶ 12). Johnson also stated that she did not when Archer would return; she proceeded to call Archer to find out but her call went unanswered and she was not able to leave a message. …show more content…
(C.R. 13, Order ¶ 15). The detectives managed to finally secure an arrest warrant for Archer during their wait. Id. After a lengthy wait, Archer ultimately arrived at his home in a black Prius in the early hours of August 19, 2016. Id. When questioned by the detectives, Archer admitted to owned the pick-up truck that had led the detectives to his home. Id. However, Archer informed the detectives that he has not driven the truck in weeks, as it has lied dormant at his dove lease during that time. Id. Further Archer informed the detectives that he had been sleeping alone at his home when the masked intruder broke into the art gallery on August 15. Id. The detectives then arrested Archer based off the mask and candelabra that they found at his home; which as of December 28, 2016, are the only items which have been recovered from the masked intruder’s robbery of the art gallery.
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
On September 4, 1958, Dollree Mapp’s was convicted in the Cuyahoga County Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Mapp v. Ohio - 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). On March 29, 1961, Dollree Mapp v. Ohio was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States after an incident with local Ohio law enforcement and a search of Dollree Mapp 's home (Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). In the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment protects and prohibits all persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, can evidence obtained through a search that was in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights still be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This is the issue that will be thoroughly examined in the landmark case of Dollree Mapp v. the State of Ohio (henceforth
They will try to create a narrative that Chris Archer intended to kill Milan Jackson in her task and that pushing her off of the ledge was the final straw. However, none of their witnesses were close enough to hear or see what was really going on. Archer states that they attempted to grab the shoulder of Milan to save her, while the prosecution's witnesses state that Milan was pushed from the shoulder. This part matches up and since they weren't close enough to know what was happening, they have no way of knowing what could have happened. Also, Pat lied in their statement by saying they recieved no money for the interviews with Dr. Mitchell. Tyler Johnson will actually help further the narrative of the kindness and goodheartnedness of Archer by discussing how they would have conversations for hours and be really open with each
An empty fuel container lay overturned nearby. As the investigators moved upstairs they encountered what looked to be patches of hair on the staircase. In the children’s room shared by both Winter and Anah, they discovered both sisters dead in their beds. They were shot to death with a small caliber weapon. In the master bedroom lay Blaine’s body. He was on the bed with a gunshot wound to the head. A .22 caliber revolver was located on the floor next to the bed. So far, the manner of death along with the physical evidence present, point the investigators at Blane being responsible for the murders as well as the fire. This is further corroborated with a look into Blaine Hodge’s
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, 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 searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
On Friday April 24th J.P. Walker, Preacher Lee, Crip Reyer and L.C. Davis got into Reyer’s Oldsmobile and they took off on a mission to kill Mark Charles Parker. (3 other cars of men followed) They went to the courthouse/jail in Poplarville and they could not get in. So they went to Jewel Alford’s House (The jail keeper) to get the keys to the Jail. Alford went with the four men to the courthouse. When he got there he went in and down the hall to Sheriff Moody’s office and got the keys to the jail. He opened the door to the jail and Lee, Reyer, Davis, Walker followed Alford into the jail. Alford then opened Parkers cell and Lee and Davis pulled Parker out of the jail and courthouse to the Reyer's Oldsmobile. Alford then left and the men got into the car.
To summarize the Fourth Amendment, it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. A search conducted by the government exists when the area or person being searched would reasonably have an expectation of privacy. A seizure takes place when the government takes a person or property into custody based on belief a criminal law was violated. If a search or seizure is deemed unreasonable, than any evidence obtained during that search and seizure can be omitted from court under
The fourth amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The police had evidence that DLK was growing marijuana in his house, so they used a thermal imager and found a significant amount of heat. The police took this evidence to a judge who gave them a warrant to search inside DLK’s house for the marijuana and when they did search his house the police found the plants and arrested DLK. The controversy surrounding this case is whether or not it was constitutional for the police to use the thermal imager of DLK’s house without a search warrant. The government did not need a warrant to use a thermal imager on the outside of DLK’s house because once the heat left DLK’s house it was out in public domain, the thermal imager could not see any details within DLK’s house, and the police already had evidence to expect DLK was growing the marijuana plants in his house.
This assignment will cover a fictitious name of Mary Cooper a woman accused of harboring a fugitive, and illegal stolen equipment. The police attempted an illegal search and seizure in her home without a search warrant. This violates her Fourth Amendment rights. Cooper held that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the exclusion of evidence found though an illegal search by state and local police officers, extending to the state a rule that previously applied onto to federal law enforcement.
The 4th amendment protects people from being searched or having their belongings taken away without any good reason. The 4th amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. For many years prior to the ratifiation, people were smuggling goods because of the Stamp Act; in response Great Britain passed the writs of assistance so British guards could search someone’s house when they don’t have a good reason to. This amendment gave people the right to privacy. “Our answer to the question of what policy must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant.” This was addressed to officers searching people’s houses and taking things without having a proper reason. I find
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
People with money think they have the ability to get away with their unlawful actions, to buy their freedom. In the show Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, in the episode “Wonderland”, Sarah Walsh was a victim of rape. She was unaware of who had raped her but eventually found out her rapist appeared to be one of her “friends” who was very wealthy. He had paid off his other victims to keep him away from the title of a criminal. Throughout the show, you can see the way people with money think about their position and the law. In the episode “Wonderland” of Law and Order: SVU, the creator portrays that criminals with money are punished not as severely as average income people. The issue of people who believe,
A number of officers, some plain-clothed, Detective Charles Smythe, and Deputy Inspector Seymour Pine showed up at 1:20 am and announced that they were “taking the place.” Having been used to raids in the past, some patrons of the bars tried to escape- only to find that their exits had been blocked. Standard procedure for police raids included female officers performing inspections in the restrooms, in order to confirm that some of the ...
Three police officers were looking for a bombing suspect at Miss Mapp’s residence they asked her if they could search her house she refused to allow them. Miss Mapp said that they would need a search to enter her house so they left to go retrieve one. The three police officers returned three hours later with a paper that they said was a search warrant and forced their way into her house. During the search they found obscene materials that they could use to arrest her for having in her home. The items were found in the basement during an illegal search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not admissible in court.
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.