This would mean that the defendant had the right to detain the defendant. The defendant can not be liable for the arrest of the defendant, which was performed by police officers in response to the resistance of the plaintiff, Holguin. Conclusion While the district court believed that Holguin’s concealment of the merchandise by placing it into her tote was willful concealment and satisfied probable cause that she intended to shoplift, the Court of Appeals disagreed, requiring more evidence of intent than just simply putting the item out of sight. The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the order…
Facts: In June of 1999 Jessica Gonzalez had her husband served with a protective order during divorce proceedings. The protective order stated the husband must stay 100 feet from the estranged wife and 3 young female children. It allowed for preannounced visitations and predetermined weekend custody. On several occasions the husband picked the children up without notice returning them late in the evening. Jessica reported each incident to the Castle Rock Police Department. The officers failed to respond to the calls telling Jessica to wait until the children were returned. The last time the children were taken without notice Jessica went to the police…
This case brings the question up of was T.LO's rights broken or not. The fourth amendment is 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. T.L.O is the person who sued because she felt that the contents in her bag were only found because it was searched unlawfully. In Juvenile Court it was decided that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation. T.L.O was searched without probably cause of any illegal activity. The fact that she was smoking cigarettes in school have the principle no reason to think she is dealing marijuana.…
Facts: On May 23rd, 1957, three Cleveland police officers arrived at the home of Mrs. Mapp with information that ‘a person was hiding out in the home, who was wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing, and that there was a large amount of policy paraphernalia being hidden in the home’. Mrs. Mapp and her daughter lived on the top floor of the two-family dwelling. Upon their arrival at that house, the officers knocked on the door and demanded entrance but Mrs. Map telephoned her attorney who told her not to let them in without a search warrant. Three hours later more officers arrived and they again sought entrance into the home. When she didn’t come to the door immediately at least one of several doors was forced open and the policemen gained admittance. She demanded to see a search warrant and the officers flashed a piece of paper in which she grabbed and put in her blouse. A struggle ensued and she was arrested. Officers entered the home and found the obscene materials. Mrs. Mapp was convicted of knowingly having had in her possession and under her control certain lewd and lascivious books and pictures unlawfully seized during an unlawful search of the defendant’s home.…
On May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp,so the police went to her home and she refused their entrance without a warrant, several hours later the police arrive in numbers and force their way in, when asked about their warrant an officer flashed Mapp a piece paper then arrested her before she could read it. The police did. It find the terror suspect but did find a chest containing pornographic materials and pictures which are in violation of an Ohio law of possession of obscene materials, at the trial the warrant was never presented to Mapp or her lawyer and Mapp was found guilty upon charges. They then took the case to the Ohio Supreme Court and claimed the eve deuce was taken illegally and that illegal evidence shouldn't be able to be used in court, the verdict was that the officers took it from the trunk peacefully so it was legal, then Mapp took the case to the Supreme Court claiming that her rights granted to her by the 4th amendment had been violated.…
Detective Lisa Ivory swears under oath that the facts expressed by her in this search warrant and Affidavit. and in the attached and incorporated statement of probable cause are true and that based thereon, she has probable cause to believe that property and/or person described below is lawfully seizable pursuant to Penal Code Section 1524 as indicated below, and is how located set forth below. Wherefore,…
Fallsbauer’s consent regarding searching in the shoe box where the police officers found the tablets later discovered to be Taz. Mrs. Fallsbauer said in her official statement that the shoebox was from her pair of shoes. R. at 5. The ambiguous statement Mrs. Fallsbauer gave to the officers is that she “left the shoebox empty on the dresser a while back, and that her son put some of his clothes in the dresser.” R. at 5. The case of U.S. v. Whitfield is analogous to and precedential for the issue we are faced with here. 939 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1991). In Whitfield, the Court said that ownership of the house does not imply common authority. “A landlord-tenant type of arrangement between a parent and an older child might indicate that the child has been given greater autonomy in the house, that his room is his private enclave, a place no one else may enter without his permission.” Id. at 1075. Because David Fallsbauer is 30 years old, a reasonable person could assume that he is autonomous and that his possessions are private. R. at 6. Therefore, his explicit consent would be necessary to access his private belongings in his bedroom. There is legitimacy for allowing police officers to search whatever they deem necessary based from consent of a third party alone, however obtaining consent to search is hardly asking for the shirt off the officers’ backs. Police officers should be reasonable people who are required to use their common sense in searching objects that are owned by an older child living with his…
The petitioner was then placed under arrest for being belligerent and taken to her bedroom on the second floor of the residence. The Ohio Police searched the house thoroughly, with no search warrant recorded of any evidence that a search warrant existed, and discovered Ogletree, who was subsequently cleared on the bombing charge, hiding in the apartment of the downstairs tenant, Minerva Tate. Continuing in the search of Mapp's residence and in the basement of the house police found a quantity of "California Gold" betting slips and paraphernalia. They also found a variety of obscene pornographic materials which Mapp stated a previous tenant named Morris Jones had left behind. The officers then conducted a widespread search of the residence wherein obscene materials were found in a trunk in the basement. Dollree Mapp was ultimately convicted of possessing these materials.…
In this court case, on April 6, 2017 in San Francisco (850 Bryant St), the defendant was Jenny Ching; a 34 year old women who has been convicted of a crime before, is being convicted for committing a robber in San Bruno on December 22, 2016. She was allegedly said to be at home with family and friends the night of the crime, however footage from the liquor store security cameras shows her face exiting the building with a bag of products and what appeared to be money. The liquor store owner claimed that Ching, and other suspects that could not be named in the court room, were acting as if they were going to purchase some alcohol. When Ching’s Friend took a gun out and demand the clerk to give them all of the money in the register, the clerk…
Defendant was seen naked with his arms at his sides from the thighs on up at his apartment window by another resident. Resident notified police on the act. The officers testified that they observed Metzger standing within a foot the window eating a bowl of cereal and that they also, seen that his body was nude from the mid-thigh on up. The defendant’s case was dismissed.…
The judge agreed that items taken not incriminating should be released and excluded and Mr. Weeks was later found guilty and the Supreme Court ruled all illegally obtained evidence was inadmissible overturning the conviction. This ruling was aimed at federal law enforcement and not the state government agencies (Dempsey & Forst, n.d.). It was not until 1961 via Mapp v…
P alleges excessive force and false arrest. P alleges he was returning home after going to look for a job and was in the vestibule area of his building when MOS approached him with guns drawn. P alleges that then MOS slammed him then P was placed on the floor and cuffed. Defendant MOS Jeffrey Sisco states that MOS received information from a confidential informant regarding when and where P would have possession of a firearm. MOS Sisco states that MOS waited for P to arrive at the location. P arrived with 2 other individuals and MOS identified themselves as officers. P dropped a plastic bag and MOS Sisco opened the bag and recovered a semi-automatic gun. To the identification of the confidential informant, MOS arrested the other 2 individuals…
When law enforcement or an government agency take it upon themselves to enter someone home or search a vehicle without a valid search warrant they are violating that persons Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure. Evidence that could be admissible in a case may be excluded from trial if it is gather as a resulted from an illegal search or some other constitutional violation. The exclusionary rule prevents the use of most evidence gathered illegally. The rule can also be triggered by law enforcement violations of a person’s Fifth or Sixth Amendments right as well. I feel that is the case as it contains to John Smith and the search of his…
A 14 year old girl was caught shoplifting at a local shopping mall. She was then arrested and taken to the police station where she is fingerprinted and given a date for court. Her parents were then called to pick her up at the station. Days later, at court, the judge looks at the bags of items she stole. He was shocked to find items she stole were too small for Susan, and are for boys. As a matter of fact the the toys she stole were too boyish and childish for Susan to be interested in.…
Held: The trial court erred in finding the presence of the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation "as a result of his (appellant's) wife leaving their home and their children." Before this circumstance may be taken into consideration, it is necessary to establish the existence of an unlawful act…