North Carolina and Valdez situations was that the specific traffic violations, because Heien vehicle was stopped, because of a broken tail light. In contrast, Valdez was stop, because of an air freshener hanging from the inside rear view mirror. The intent of the traffic stop was different, in Heien’s case the officer conducted the situation in professional manner with no harmful intent. Yet, in Valdez case the officer had personal history with the occupants and he had a personal vendetta against Camilo Valdez identical brother Juan Valdez so the traffic stop was based on personal intent. In Heien v. North Carolina Heien was the owner of the vehicle, yet in Camilo Valdez case he was not the owner of the vehicle. Heien agreed to have his car search when the officer ask him permission. In contrast, Juan Valdez did not consent to have the vehicle searched by Michael Holden. In Heien case there was no appellate court cases that address the legality of this type of traffic violation. Yet, in Valdez situation there was an appellate court case that did set precedent and address that it’s not a traffic violation to have an air freshener hanging on the rearview mirror. These differences may seem minuscule but it does change the whole nature of the…
At the trial, Tate moved to suppress evidence obtained during the investigation. As he did this, he noticed that when Officer Benda parked behind Tate, it was an unlawful seizure according to the fourth amendment. The court concluded that he was seized with reason to believe Tate was under the influence. This caused the conclusions to be reversed and was therefore inadmissible at trail. This case was moved to the district court and this court concluded that a person could not be seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment if he is unaware of the police presence. The court also concluded that Officer Benda had reasonable suspicion to arrest Tate, thus reversing the conclusions and was therefore inadmissible at…
On March 7th, 1980, two high school freshman were found smoking in the bathroom at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, NJ. The students were escorted to the vice principal Mr. Choplick’s office. The defendant, TLO, who was one of the students that were caught smoking denied the accusation. Mr. Choplick inspected TLO’s purse and found a box of cigarettes. Afterward removing the box of cigarettes, he saw a pack of rolling papers. Mr. Choplick suspected that a closer examination of the purse may yield evidence of drug use and that a thorough inspection would be needed. After a thorough search, he found a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, a number of empty plastic bags, a large amount one dollar bills, an index card with a list of who…
In the case Ridley v. California the Court decided on whether the searching of a smart phone of someone placed under arrest without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment. David Ridley was arrested for possession of firearms. During the arrest an officer seized Ridley’s cell phone and searched his phone without obtaining a warrant from a judge. The officer found evidence that involves him in an earlier gang shooting and charged him in the shooting. During his trial the California Court of Appeals ruled that the search and the obtaining evidence from his cell phone was valid. He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in which the court decide unanimously that police need a warrant to search a suspect’s cell phone.…
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.…
Marijuana, approximately 6.48 grams of a green leafy substance resembling marijuana, which was packaged in a plastic baggie and a green plastic container. Found in Suspect…
A Kentucky grand jury charged King with trafficking marijuana and trafficking of a controlled substance. King filed motion to suppress the evidence found in the warrantless search, but the trial court denied the motion. King entered a conditionally guilty plea, under which he reserved the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, saying that “exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry because the…
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.…
The case Arizona vs. Grant occured because an event that happened on August 25, 1999 involving two police officers, and a suspect who was believed to be involved in narcotics activity. The officers first visit to the house where the suspect lived was followed by a second visit later that night because he wasnt there at the initial visit. After their first visit they ran a background check and found causes for the arrest of the subject, Rodney Grant. Upon the second return the subject Rodney Grant was apprehended after pulling into his driveway and walking about ten feet towards the officers. After they placed him in the police vehicle, they searched the suspects car, which was the cause of the Arizona vs Grant case, because of a debate on evidence pulled from the car without reasonable reasons to search it. Although there was cocaine and a weapons in the car, the officers didnt have reasons to prove why the searched it after the suspect had already been apprehended and put into the police vehicle. It is because of this that led to questioning of why the car was searched because Grant was not in the nearby vicinity of the vehicle and therefore no harm to the officers unless he had a weapons in his immediate possession.…
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…
The case present before us involves the constitutionality of a dog sniff in regards to the 4rth Amendment. The respondent claims that the police officer, a representative of the State of Florida lacked probable cause to search the vehicle. The dog used in the operation, Aldo was not reliable since his detector certification had expired. Also, the officer did not maintain a record of his field performance alerts. As a result, the respondent contends that Aldo’s alert was false thereby diminishing the validity of probable cause. On the other hand, the State of Florida counters by arguing that probable cause is a flexible common sense standard and requires only a fair probability and not hard certainties. Moreover, the officer who had trained with the dog is the best judge of the dog’s credibility as opposed to the Court’s especially since law enforcement agencies act with good faith. Consequently, defense counsel moved to suppress the physical evidence as the product of a warrantless search without probable cause. The trial court denied the motion to suppress but made no findings. The respondent then appealed to the Florida First District Court of Appeal. They affirmed. Harris v. State, 989 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The Florida Supreme Court quashed the lower court decision. Harris v. State, 71 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 2011). The Court scrutinized the case under the totality of the circumstances test established in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) and concluded that Aldo’s reliability, was not enough to demonstrate probable cause.…
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.…
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,…
Jardines 11-564) he requested that the evidence found on his property be inadmissible to court (Florida v. Jardines 2013). His reasoning for this was, according to the constitution, his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by conducting an illegal search on to his property. The dog used gave the alert of narcotics without having obtained a warrant prior to the “search.” Fourth Amendment says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, 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 searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (U.S. Constitution). The Discretionary Court ruled that the plants be inadmissible, in favor of Jardines. This did not sit well with the prosecution, since the plants were their case so they filled an appeal. This was filled with the Florida Third District Court of Appeals (Florida v. Jardines, 2013). They decided to overturn the Discretionary Courts decision. Using the method writ of certiorari, Jardines filed a petition for discretionary review, which is how this case made it to the Supreme Court (Florida v. Jardines,…
Wagner, Benjamin B. Dolan, Jared C. 2012. “Medical Marijuana and Federal Narcotics Enforcement in the Eastern District of California.” Mcgeorge Law Review 43, no. 1: 109-126. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.…