Gambino v. United States On August 1, 1924 Gambino and Lima were both arrested by two New York state troopers . They were driving near the Canadian border when their car was searched with out a warrant and intoxicating liquor was found and was taken. The liquor and other property taken was immediately turned over to a Federal deputy collector of customs for prosecution in the Federal court for Northern New York. Both Gambino and Lima were charged with conspiracy to transport the liquor in violation with the national prohibition act. The defense argued that the search without a warrant and no probable cause was in conflict with the Constitution Amendments four,five, and six. The motion was denied which meant that was no excuse and the liquor was then brought into the trial as evidence. Both Lima and Gambino were found guilty and were sentenced to fine and imprisonment. The case was taken to appeals court where they affirmed the verdict and neither court delivered an opinion. This court was granted a writ of certiorari. The government contended that the New York state troopers at the time were agents of the United States. The defendants contend that their was no probable cause and that the state troopers are to be deemed agents of the United States because section 26 of the prohibition act imposes the duty of arrest and seizure where liquor is being illegally transported. They also argued that state and federal agents were working together which in that case evidence obtained through wrongful search and seizure by state officials CO-operating with federal agents must be excluded. But it was held admissible and the idea was excluded from the case because their wasn't a federal agent present at the search and seizure. Therefor the only way the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments could be applied to the case was if a federal office had aided the arrest. The only evidence against Gambino and Lima was the liquor which if thrown out they would have been found innocent that being the only evidence that could have prosecuted them for any crime. Gambino didn't have much of a chance even though many unreasonable search and seizure are admitted to lower federal courts but only 3 cases had been found where it had been seriously contended. The verdict was made mostly on the fact that federal officers did not have relation to the state officers who made the search and seizure the only way the liquor would have been thrown out is if federal officers aided the state officers. One of the officers had been stationed on 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.
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?
The amendment involved in this case was the Fourth Amendment due to the protection of unreasonable search
By 1997 the case, along with another case, (Quill v. Vacco), reached the Supreme Court. The decision in the Supreme Court did not, however, meet up to the original case. The defense won the trial.
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...
They were indicted on September 14, 1920, and put on trial on May 31, 1921. Their trial lasted almost seven weeks, and on July 14, 1921, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were found guilty of murder in the first degree. They would be executed for this crime.
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
The 18th amendment had made it illegal to manufacture, sell, transport, import, or export drinking alcohol, but this didn't mean there was no alcohol in the US. The Prohibition Unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, was in charge of enforcing prohibition. The force was made up of 3,000 to 3,500 men. The men had to ensure that the 18th amendment was abided by, but there were problems. On the Pacific coast there was more miles of border than there were men. This allowed for smugglers from Mexico and Canada to become successful at smuggling alcohol into the US. On the other side of the county, the Atlantic coast, the force, was not having an easier time. In New Jersey and New York, smugglers would arrive at the coast but be anchored outside the 3-mile limit, thus ensuring that the government could not intervene. When night came the smugglers would make their deliveries by motor speed boats. (Document C) It is stated in (Document E) that If all the alcohol that was being sold illegally was sold legally there would be enough to pay the local and national debt and still have a good amount left over, so why keep the prohibition if it was doing more damage than good to the
Ms. Dollree Mapp and her daughter lived in Cleveland, Ohio. After receiving information that an individual wanted in connection with a recent bombing was hiding in Mapp's house, the Cleveland police knocked on her door and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and subsequently refused to let the police in when they failed to produce a search warrant. After several hours of surveillance and the arrival of more officers, the police again sought entrance to the house. Although Mapp did not allow them to enter, they gained access by forcibly opening at least one door. Once the police were inside the house, Mapp confronted them and demanded to see their warrant. One of the officers held up a piece of paper claiming it was a search warrant. Mapp grabbed the paper but an officer recovered it and handcuffed Mapp ?because she had been belligerent.? Dragging Mapp upstairs, officers proceeded to search not only her room, but also her daughter?s bedroom, the kitchen, dinette, living room, and basement.
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.
Enacting prohibition in a culture so immersed in alcohol as America was not easy. American had long been a nation of strong social drinkers with a strong feeling towards personal freedom. As Okrent remarks, “George Washington had a still on his farm. James Madison downed a pint of whiskey a day”. This was an era when drinking liquor on ships was far safer than the stale scummy water aboard, and it was common fo...
DLK had no way of disposing all of the evidence without being suspicious about his actions because his house was not on hot pursuit, DLK was in his own house and not endangering public safety, he did not allow the agents to scan his home for the signs of heat used to grow marijuana, and he was not arrested in public therefore the agents had no probable cause to search his house without a warrant. In Document A it gives an example of a court case similar to DLK’s case, Carroll v. United States. In this dispute during the Prohibition Era, federal agents believed Carroll was selling alcohol. The agents spotted Carroll driving on a highway and chased him, when they pulled him over they searched his car, found the alcohol and arrested him. Carroll argued that this violated his Fourth Amendment rights but the Supreme Court ruled the search was lawful because this was considered hot pursuit and Carroll could easily drive away with all of the
Prohibition in the United States was a measure designed to reduce drinking by eliminating the businesses that manufactured, distributed, and sold alcoholic beverages. The Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution took away license to do business from the brewers, distillers, vintners, and the wholesale and retail sellers of alcoholic beverages. The leaders of the prohibition movement were alarmed at the drinking behavior of Americans, and they were concerned that there was a culture of drink among some sectors of the population that, with continuing immigration from Europe, was spreading (“Why Prohibition” 2). Between 1860 and 1880 America's urban population grew from 6 million to more than 14 million people. The mass of this huge increase found itself toiling in factories and sweatshops and living in horrible social conditions; getting drunk was there only highlight in life.
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
office was not a small office, it had around 250 prosecutors and all of them got disqualified. The