On December 20, 2016 per instruction of Staff Instructor Sergeant Donahue, the 63rd R.O.C at the Plymouth Police Academy was ordered to write a To-From about the Collective Knowledge Doctrine. This doctrine more or less describes that the knowledge of one, is the knowledge of all. Reasoning on behalf of this To-From, Staff Instructor Sergeant Donahue was informed about certain events that had happened to fellow student officers. During the 63rd R.O.C chow break on December 20, 2016, Staff Instructor
the Fourth Amendment supports the warrant-less seizure of evidence that the constitution categorizes as the plain view. Also, it revealed the decision and explanations of judges regarding the inadvertent requirements.
of privacy is the “lawful right to not be disturbed”. Conversely, third party doctrine depends on voluntary divulgence of information to another individual or party. In doing so, the individual willingly gives up their right to privacy of that information provided. The text gives examples of both reasonable expectation of privacy as well as third party doctrine. Third Party Doctrine Third party doctrine has overridden the Fourth Amendment at times
warrant they would have been fine as long as they put the stereo equipment as an item to be searched. The greatest problem that existed within this case and how it relates to the Constitution as I see it is, why the officer went beyond the “plain view” doctrine. He should have never moved the stereo to record the serial number. The fourth amendment is clear on how to search; this officer clearly did an unreasonable search and seize pertaining to the stereo. The Fourth Amendment clearly states you
Kansas recognizes the plain view doctrine as an exception to the search warrant requirement. An officer may seize evidence of a crime in plain view when (1) the officer is lawfully present and (2) the evidence is immediately and apparently incriminating. The intrusion that initially places the officer in plain view of the evidence may be supported by a warrant or by any other exception to the search warrant requirement. Thus, when an officer conducts a search of a vehicle incident to the driver’s
valid because it was not issued by a “nature and detached magistrate.” Stewart also rejected the argument of New Hampshire argument to make an exception to the search warrant with “special circumstances” neither the incident to arrest doctrine nor the plain view doctrine justified the search, and that an automobile exception was also
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
The various aspect of the plain view doctrine is that an officer must observe the item in plain view, also the officer must already have a lawful presence in an area that's protected by the 4th constitutional amendment. It's important that officers immediately recognize the item as evidence or either contraband
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution was first introduced in 1789 by James Maddison, and was a part of the Bill of Rights which includes the first ten amendments. The Fourth Amendment was created and ultimately it was created to protect two things the right to privacy and the freedom against unlawful invasions. The exact wording of the Fourth Amendment is “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures
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. The differentiation
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
In 1787, the Constitution, created by a group of men known as the “Framers”, is the highest law in the United States. At first, the Constitution was not ratify because it did not have a bill of rights which is a list of rights that belong to the people. Therefore to allow changes to the Constitution, the Framers created the amendment process. In 1791, congress proposed twelve changes to the Constitution. Ten of the twelve changes were agreed to by the states and were called “The Bill of Rights.”
heavily with the fundamental principles of criminal law. In fact most legal officials believe that utilizing the criminal framework improperly by forcing corporate criminal risk will diminish the basis of criminal obligation framework. Defenders of this view believe that corporate criminal law conflicts with the basic criminal law in two regards. These defenders strongly believe corporate criminal law presents a great deal of corporate criminal obligation which depend on standards of vicarious risk. These
Extending the exclusionary rule, this doctrine makes any secondary information or evidence obtained illegally (via the exclusionary rule) inadmissible in court. Therefore, if the tree is contaminated then the fruit of that tree is contaminated as well (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Law & Legal Definition, 2001-2014). Although the Silverthorn Lumber Co. v. United States (1920) case is the commonly recognized case that adopted the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine it wasn’t until 1939 in the Nardone
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
Introduction The fourth amendment states, “The United States Constitution provides the right of the people to be secured in their persons, house, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and should not be violated, and no warrants should be issued, but upon probable cause sustained by Oath or affirmation, and specifically the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (law.cornell, n.d.). With that being said, in order for the authorities to search and seize an individual
“ Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime.” (Wikipedia, 2014) This law encompasses several different aspects of our government and the ways used to regulate them. Maintaining the peace and order of the public is one aspect. Law enforcement officers also try to keep good conduct of the public. Anyone who places the safety of the public in jeopardy, is in violation of this law. Punishment is used in a variety of ways to discipline any person who breaks these laws. There
be if the items were in plain view: Meaning if an officer is at your property, in this case for a domestic call, or if the officers are there for a valid reason and the officer see’s marijuana or any criminal objects on plain view or in plain sight (table, coffee table, kitchen table, counters) then the search becomes valid and the stuff can be seized as evidence and the evidence cannot be suppressed. Next exception would be open field’s doctrine: familiar to the pain view; but some what different
some officials to take action. Whether it was in direct response to "the liberalizing tendencies beginning to take hold in some [. . .] New England churches" (Westbrook 65), or a "reaction against the attempt in the Age of Reason to reduce Christian doctrine to rationalistic explanation" ("Great Awakening"), the Great Awakening impressed upon the issues of religious conscience. Moreover, what spawns from this controversy is a query over the juxtaposition of morality and spirituality: the question of
Consent- A common Fourth Amendment Exception It is amazing that in this day and age that there is even a concern about the constitutional rights of suspects involved in computer related crime. The rights of the citizens of this country have been eroded by the passage of many laws including the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.O.T. Act. People can expect to have less privacy because of these laws. The government can enter a person’s house that is not suspected of terrorism or any criminal activity at all. They are