Preview

Benchmark

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1608 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Benchmark
Alyssa Melendez
Brakensiek
Criminal Justice 105
27 March 2012 Benchmark #3 1. Yes, the search of the vehicle was lawful. The officer smelled marijuana while Ross rolled down the window, during a routine traffic stop, giving the officer probable cause to search the vehicle. The probable cause was based on the officers’ personal observation. “Police officers may use their personal training, experience, and expertise to infer probable cause from situations that may not be obviously criminal.” (Gaines 160) The officer then found a pound of marijuana giving probable cause for arrest. 2. The statement about the drugs at Ross’ residence is admissible in court. The officer did not need to give Ross his Miranda warnings. “Miranda warnings are only required before custodial interrogation takes place.” (Gaines 176) Ross’ statement about the drugs was said prior to being taken into custody. 3. Yes, Ross and Rachel’s arrest was lawful because the officer smelled marijuana when he approached the vehicle. The officer then had enough probable cause to search the vehicle, which led to the discovery of a pound of marijuana. The illegal drugs led to the arrest of Ross and Rachel. “the court has established that the fourth amendment does not require police to obtain a warrant to search automobiles or other movable vehicles when they have probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains contraband or evidence in criminal activity” (Gaines 174) The vehicle was registered to both Ross and Rachel, they both were also in the vehicle while the car smelled of marijuana. The officer had enough probable cause to believe Ross and Rachel were transporting illegal drugs, based on the amount of marijuana found in the vehicle making the arrest lawful. The arrest is considered a warrantless arrest which requires an officer to observe a crime being committed or has reliable knowledge that a crime has been or will be committed. 4. Yes the search of Ross and Rachel’s house

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    King’s attorney argued that the warrantless search and seizure of the evidence within the apartment violated his client’s fourth amendment rights. The attorney then filed a motion to suppress the evidence which he claimed was illegally obtained. The court found that the warrantless entry was justified due to exigent circumstances which the officers encountered when they approached the apartment. These circumstances included the strong odor presence of marijuana, failure to respond to the door, and the movement which sounded consistent with the destruction of evidence.…

    • 396 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Minnesota vs. Timothy Dickerson, two police officers parked in an unmarked car, outside of an apartment building known for trafficking contraband substances, did willfully and knowingly stop and frisk respondent due to suspicious and evasive behavior, exiting the twelve-unit apartment building. The officers felt that upon his exit and approach towards patrol car, and eye contact with one of the officers, he turned and proceeded into a side alley. Officers then pursued respondent feeling his suspicious and evasive behavior was probable of being criminal in nature. They pulled their car into the alley and immediately stopped and searched the defendants outer clothing finding no weapons. During the cursory search one officer testified that he had felt a cellophane bag containing crack cocaine later when weighed a total of 1/5th of a gram was found. The officers claimed it within their scope to search and seize what the officer suspected to be drugs inside the defendants clothing.…

    • 510 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Case Study: Mannie Vazquez

    • 1156 Words
    • 5 Pages

    State, 753 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), the court held that Mr. Smith had no legal duty to comply with what the officer instructed him to do, and furthermore, Mr. Smith had the right to deny his consent, which he did so when he backed up. The officer violated Mr. Smith’s rights, as he had not observed any reasonable suspect that Mr. Smith participated in any illegal activity, and went ahead with the search on his own assumptions. It is important to note that the court as well, stated that the government is who needs to prove that the consent was voluntary and an act of free will, See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491(1983). The officers in Tallahassee who searched Mannie and Vince’s car and room had no probable cause that there was illegal activity occur, the officers acted on their own assumptions that the license plate on Vazquez’s rental car was from a place of high drug…

    • 1156 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In the case Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971) Harris was accused of offering in heroin to a covert officer on two events. In any case, Harris took the stand in his own safeguard yet denied the offense, and he asserted he sold the officer two sacks of baking powder. On round of questioning the arraignment utilized repudiating proclamations made by Petitioner to police not long after his arrest. The contradicting statements were made before Petitioner got his Miranda warning. Okay, I understand about the Miranda cautioning not given before Harris affirmation, but rather shouldn't something be said about the proof? Is it accurate to say that it was tested to be heroin or baking…

    • 118 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Two men were suspected of bootlegging. The police pulled them over and discovered illegal liquor in the trunk of their automobile. The defendants argued there was no warrant served allowing police to search their vehicle, therefore, the evidence should be suppressed. The Court disagreed, reasoning it was impractical to obtain a warrant due the mobility of an automobile. The Court noted difference between buildings and automobiles. Automobiles have the ability to leave the jurisdiction, taking the evidence with them, before a warrant could be obtained. The ruling in Carroll v United States enacted warrantless searches of vehicles are permissible if there was “probable cause” to believe contraband could be in the vehicle and belief that the vehicle could be moved before the officer could get a warrant. This became known as the “automobile…

    • 4995 Words
    • 20 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest if it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 at 351.…

    • 793 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Arizona v. Gant (2009) SCOTUS rule held that the Belton rule was revised as the justices stated that it did not give authority for the police officers to search an arrestee’s vehicle if the occupant had been arrested and therefore could not access the interior of the car. This implies that the police should only search the arrestee and places that could be reached. Gant could no longer reach the interior of his car, and there was no reasonable ground to suppose that a search would produce evidence to support the offense of driving on a suspended license. Gant v. Arizona established that a search of a vehicle after an arrest is permissible when the arrestee is not confined, and the passenger compartment is within their immediate reach.…

    • 296 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    So Aldo did his job and alert that in the driver's side door smelled drugs which give Wheatley probable cause so that the police officer to search Harris truck. The reason, the police officer use a warrantless search and arrest was because at the commission moment it was not feasible to obtaining warrant prior to the search and arrest. Aldo's alert investigation give substantial evidence that Harry has committed a crime that lead to the discovery of "200 loose pseudoephedrine pills, 8,000 matches, a bottle of hydrochloric acid, two containers of antifreeze, and a coffee filter full of iodine crystals- all ingredients for making methamphetamine." Once again, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution allows the police officer like Wheetley to conducted a warrantless search to Harris's truck because in that circumstances it was likely that the evidence will be destroyed. As a result, the trial court permitted the evidence to be submitted at trial that most likely will confirm the charged of possession of pseudoephedrine against…

    • 420 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Kyllo Case Study

    • 92 Words
    • 1 Page

    The defendant, Kyllo, was arrested for growing marijuana in his home. In order to discover this, the police scanned Kyllo’s house utilizing a device that detects the heat from high intensity lams used to grow the plants inside close environments. The officer was standing on the street, outside of Kyllo’s house, as the scan revealed a part of the house that was significantly hotter than the rest. This information was used by the police to obtain a warrant to search the defendants home where they found more than 100 marijuana plants.…

    • 92 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    According to the Constitution, Officer Wheetley did not have any legal right to search Harris’ car prior to the walk about with Aldo. Once Aldo indicated that there may be drugs in the car, then a limited warrantless search was appropriate, which resulting in the finding of drugs. But was Aldo even needed in this situation? Officer Wheetley had no reason to suspect Harris of having drugs in his vehicle, except that he was acting suspicious, which should not be enough probable cause because thinking that someone is ‘acting suspicious’ can be subjective. Furthermore, the use of drug sniffing dogs in general has been questioned due to their inconsistency of detecting the drugs that they are trained to locate and apprehend in various…

    • 489 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Arizona v. Gant

    • 995 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Respondent, Rodney Gant, was arrested for driving with a suspended license. Subsequent to the search of the Gant’s vehicle officers found cocaine in the back seat. At trial Gant moved to have the evidence suppressed denied that there was probable cause to search the vehicle, but did not decide to suppress the evidence. The court ruled the search to be that incident to an arrest. Respondent was found guilty and sentenced to three-year prison term.…

    • 995 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Facts: Hollis D. King was arrested after a search of his apartment. Local police department officers had probable cause to force entering and searching King apartment. Incident to search and arrest stemmed from a strong odor of what appeared to be burning illegal narcotics. Prior to entering the apartment, Police Officers knocked on the door and announced their presence. The occupants in the apartments did not respond. Under the suspicion of valuable evidence being destroyed the officers forced entering into the apartment. As the officers entered the apartment the odor of the burning substance became stronger. The smell of the burning substance created the exigent circumstance in the probable cause and the case at trial. Without a warrant,…

    • 703 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The discovery and search are procedures affirmed by cases New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, (1981), Arizona v. Gant, 566 U.S. 332, (2009) and Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, (1999). In the case of New York v. Belton, the court ruled that officers can search a car and any compartments in the car after conducting an arrest. This allows the search of the vehicle in the case of Rounds, because he was in custody in the patrol car, and he was arrested. Arizona v. Gant held that the search of a vehicle, after its occupant is arrested, is permissible if it is reasonable to believe that there is evidence linked to the arrest. Since Officer Towns first arrested and placed Rounds in the patrol car and then moved to question the opaque bag, he was in his right, especially because there was reason to believe that the contents of the bag could be linked to evidence of Rounds’s past crime: possession of marijuana. The prosecution cites Wyoming v. Houghton as well. This case dictates that as long as there is probable cause to search a vehicle, all following searches, including those of its contents are legal. Since there was probable cause to search Rounds’s vehicle, the recovery and seizure of the opaque bag was constitutional.…

    • 1222 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    I find that the evidence would still be valid based on the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. The good faith exception states “that If officers had a reasonable, good-faith belief that they were acting per legal authority, such as by relying on a search warrant that is later found to have been legally defective, the illegally seized evidence is admissible” (Busby, 2009). The good faith exception was established by a 6-3 U.S Supreme court decision in the United States v. Leon 468 U.S. 897 (1984). The majority opinion, as written by Bryon R. White, was that the exclusionary rule was established to deter law enforcements violations of the 4th amendment warranting against illegal search and seizure. Therefore “reliable physical evidence seized by officers reasonably relying on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate” did not violate the exclusionary rule and the evidence was to be admitted (Kaye, 2011). The good faith exception was reviewed and expanded in Arizona v. Evans 514 U.S. 1 (1995), a case that I feel directly correlates to my decision reference the admissibility of the evidence in the example given. In Arizona v. Evans an officer conducts a legal traffic stop. Upon running the driver’s license the officer discovers an outstanding warrant for arrest. Pursuant to the arrest a search was conduct and marijuana discovered. When charging Evan’s when possession the officers discovered that the warrant had been quashed. In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that this was not a violation of Evan’s 4th Amendment rights since the evidence, though obtained based on an illegal warrant, was legal based on the good faith…

    • 425 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Bp Narrative Report

    • 343 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Ogburn and asked him to step out of the vehicle. I patted Mr. Ogburn and took a screw driver and pocket knife off of his person and placed him in handcuffs for officer safety and asked Mr. Ogburn several times if he had Marijuana in his vehicle. He stated that he did not and I would not find any if I searched his vehicle. I then placed Mr. Ogburn in the back of my patrol car with the door open and upon searching his vehicle I found an already smoked joint sitting on top of the center console. Further searching his vehicle I removed the cup holder and found .69 OZ of Marijuana. When I showed the Marijuana to Mr. Ogburn he stated that it was not his when it was concealed in his vehicle and I placed him under arrest at approximately 1815 hours. When I placed Mr. Ogburn under arrest he then stated he was doing community service already for a possession of Marijuana…

    • 343 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays