1. RIGHT OF PRIOR NOTICE OF THE CHARGES TO BE USED AGAINST THE OFFENDER IN COURT
Prior notices of charges against an offender in court are provided for in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The appellants argument that he was not notified of the charges held against him in reasonable time are covered by the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Process and Equal Protection Clause. Accordingly, the Fourteenth Amendment provides that advance notice that a criminal accusation will follow a substantive offence is not a requirement. What is relevant is whether reasonable opportunity was provided by the prosecution to enable the defendant to defend himself against the accusation. Accordingly, in this case the opportunity to defend himself against the accusations was availed to the appellant thus the judgment was consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment provisions.
2. GROUNDS OF DETENTION AND UNREASONABLE SEARCH, SEIZURE AND DETENTION
Lack of identification documents does not warrant an officer to arrest and detain an individual. However, under the Texas law littering is a Class C Misdemeanor that can justify the arrest and detention of the appellant s the objects littered weighed less than five pounds. Accordingly, the suspicion and detainment of the appellant by the police officer is justifiable. However, there have been issues amounting to infringement on the rights of individuals upon detention. Most notably is the fact that the officers responsible for detaining individuals always end up to investigate matters that are not related to the issue of detention. For instance, if the appellant was arrested for lack of identification items he was only supposed by to be asked ...
... middle of paper ...
...n the evidence provided on appeal (objections on the chain of command) was different from the objection raised during the trial of the case( objection on the admissibility of the testimony by the State’s forensic chemist). It is worth noting that this decision is consistent with the court’s decision in the cases of Guevara v State, 97 S.W.3d 579, 583 (Tex.Crim. App. 2003).Also Tex. R.App. P. 33.1(a); Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(1); and Heidelberg v. State, 144 S.W. 3d.535, 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) which outlined the fact that an objection made by the defendant during trial should be similar by that made by him/ her during appeal.
Works Cited
Fusco, T.J.D. (1994). Permissibility under Fourth Amendment of detention of motorist by police, following lawful stop for traffic offense, to investigate matters not related to offense. American Law Reports 118 A.L.R. Fed. 567
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
As a result of the suspect, P.C Spicer asked the defendant for a piece of identification, and Mr.Nanokeesic responded the identification was in his backpack and P.C Spicer told him to get it. Nevertheless, the other office P.C Bannon formed intention to search his backpack during the unlawful detention. The police said “perhaps I need to look for you.” At this point he reached out for the strap of Mr.Nanokeesic’s backpack. In R.v.Mohamd, the court held that the Officer must subjectively believe that person is committing or has committed an indictable offence and their belief is based on objectively reasonable grounds. There was no evidence of Mr.Nanokeesic was committing an indictable offence. Also, the detention of Mr.Nanokeesic was unreasonable and unlawful. In short, the police did not have any lawful basis to conduct a
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 controversy in this case was did the search and seizure of Terry and the men he was with violate the Fourth Amendment? This case tried to determine the role of the Fourth Amendment when police are investigating suspicious circumstances on the street, and when there is probable cause to search someone that is displaying questionable behavior (Justia, n.d.).
In the case of Illinois vs. Wardlow, many factors contributed to Wardlow’s arrest. Starting with the facts of the case, on September 9, 1995 Sam Wardlow fled after seeing police vehicles covering an area in Chicago where it was known to have high drug trafficking. Two police officers spotted Wardlow, Officers Nolan and Officer Harvey, and once Officer Nolan caught up with Mr. Wardlow, Officer Nolan proceeded to conduct a pat-down search of only the outer layer of clothing, or a “Terry Stop.” Officer Nolan was well aware that in this area, there was almost always a weapon on a suspect that was involved with some type of drug transaction. After conducting the frisk, Officer Nolan squeezed the opaque colored bag that Mr. Wardlow was carrying. He noticed that the object inside of the bag felt like a hard and heavy object which he believed could potentially be a gun. After looking inside the bag, Officer Nolan found a weapon inside, a .38 caliber handgun to be exact. On the spot, Officer Nolan and Officer Harvey arrested Mr. Wardlow.
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 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
First, studies have to show how the officers apply the procedure of stop-and-frisk second, it should describe how the Fourth Amendment ties with how the police officer performs it. As further research has passed, the authors have seen some articles of steps on how stop-and-frisk being done. “Officers should conduct stops only when they are justified.” By this standard, officers should be required to file a report explaining the reason and context surrounding the stop, along with the ultimate outcome (arrest, weapons or drug confiscation, etc.). Police leaders, commanders, and managers should communicate a clear, uniform message about the purpose of the practice and lay out the expectations for police conduct. Officers should be trained to conduct stops legally and respectfully. In essence, they need to “sell the stop” to citizens by explaining the purpose behind it, how it links to the agency’s crime control efforts, and why it benefits the
A man named Edward Strief was arrested by detective Douglas Fackrell during an anyonoymys tip relating to the sales of drugs at a nearby residence. Fackwell witnesed Edwad coming outside the residence that he was watching for two weeks. Fackwell then decided to stop and detain Strief as he was walking out. In addition, Strief had a warrant out for his arrest which was deemed “outstanding”. In addition, the deective discovered methamphetamine and a pipe used for drugs. Stried fought it in court claiming the search was unreasonable because the officer has no suspicion., thus affirming the exclusonary rule. According to the district court , the detective conducted an unlawful investigative stop, but the evdience found justifies incident to arrest.
In Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) probationers were afforded the right to a preliminary hearing at the time of their arrest to determine if there is probable cause to believe they have committed a parole violation and a final hearing that is a more comprehensive hearing to determine the making of a final revocation decision (Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 1973). The Court’s rulings in Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) and Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) resulted in neither probation nor parole can be revoked without a formal due process hearing that requires notice, disclosure of evidence, an opportunity to be heard, a neutral hearing body, and written statements of the fact-finders (Zalman, 2011, p. 308).The Court stated in Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) that the body
The Miranda warnings stem from a United States Court’s decision in the case, Miranda v. Arizona. There are two basic conditions that must be met for Miranda warnings to be required: the suspect must be in official police custody and the suspect must be under interrogation. The suspect goes through a booking process after an arrest. The suspect will have a bond hearing shortly after the completion of the booking process or after arraignment. The arraignment is the suspect’s first court appearance to officially hear the charges filed against him or her and to enter a plea. The preliminary hearing or grand jury proceeding determines if there is substantial evidence for the suspect to be tried for the crime charged. In this essay, I will identify and describe at least four rights afforded criminal defendants at the arrest stage and during pretrial. I will analyze the facts presented and other relevant factors in the scenario provided. I will cite legal authority to support my conclusions.
The issue of pretrial publicity is a maze of overlapping attentions and interwoven interests. Lawyers decry pretrial publicity while simultaneously raising their own career stock and hourly fee by accumulating more if it. The media both perpetrate and comment on the frenzy -- newspapers and television stations generate the publicity in the first place and then actively comment on the likely effect that the coverage will have on the trial. When a high profile case is brought to trial, many media outlets report not only on the details of the trial, but also details about the persons involved, in particular the defendant. Much of the information reported regarding the case is released before the trial starts. Furthermore, media outlets may not only report facts, but also present the information in a way that projects the culpability of the defendant. By allowing pretrial publicity of court cases, potential jurors are given information that could sway their opinion of the defendant even before the trial begins, and how they interpret the evidence given during the trial. The right of a criminal defendant to receive a fair trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The right of the press, print and electronic media, to publish information about the defendant and the alleged criminal acts is guaranteed by the First Amendment. These two constitutional safeguards come into conflict when pretrial publicity threatens to deprive the defendant of an impartial jury. However, there is a compromise between these two Constitutional rights, which would allow for the selection of an impartial jury and allow the media to report on the details of the case. The media should only be able to report information once the trial has...
Holhan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935). In Napue, the court had held that the same result occurs when the State although not soliciting false evidence allows it to go uncorrected when it appears. In Brady, the Supreme Court had held that irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution, suppression of material exculpatory evidence required a new trial.
This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law.
American citizens accused of crimes have a constitutional right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with witnesses against them, to bring witnesses in their favor, and to have the assistance of legal counsel. On April 27, 1861, Lincoln decided that such constitutional...