Sunday, May 19, 2019

5th and 6th amendment

The poop Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and provides that no warrants shall issue entirely upon seeming cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons to be seized. In order to establish probable cause, the incumbent must establish that there is a jolly probability that the area to be searched contains tell apart or the person to be arrested has attached a hatred a mere possibility is insufficient.A search without a warrant is presumed unreasonable absent the resence of a accept exception. U. S. v. Johnson. The Supreme Court has held that this is permissible, scarce only under certain circumstances. The first issue is whether Detective Davis (DD) committed a search when she went down to the basement. A search occurred if Bishop Short had a indwelling scene of concealing which society would deem to b e reasonable (Katz v. U. S. The defense would possible argue that the Bishop (B) had a subjective expectation of privacy in the basement, and that there was an objective expectation of privacy also because only the area where run took place were open to the public. The government would counter by arguing that DD simply walked downstairs during the services, which were open to the public, so anyone nad access to this area. Additionally, there was a childrens playroom, which could be used to take loud or emit babies during the services, and that was therefore accessible to the public.If other members of society could gain access and view the basement, then there was non an objective expectation of privacy. Accordingly, DD did not commit a search simply by going into the basement. Whether a search occurred becomes less clear once DD entered Bs office. The overnment would argue that the door was open, so DD did not commit a search by merely entering Bs office. Whether this was a sea rch was less significant, however, than the arising of the desk drawer. Even if DD had healthy access to the office, she sure enough searched when she opened the drawer.According to the plain view exception of the warrant requirement, a police officer can seize anything in plain view once legally in a space, only the officer needs probable cause to consider that what is immediately apparent is contraband or evidence of a crime, and it cannot require further investigation. genus Arizona v. Hicks. The Supreme Court has even eld that lifting a turntable to view a serial number is an illegal search that extends beyond the limits of the plain view doctrine. Arizona v. Hicks.Certainly, opening the desk drawer is more of an invasion ot privacy than litting a turntable. Further, the detense would argue that B had both a subjective and objective (an expectation that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable) expectation of privacy in the contents of the drawer. Katz. B would argue he had a subjective expectation of privacy, mostly because the drawer was closed, but also that society would recognize this as a reasonable expectation because the drawer was closed.If the government had not brought this up earlier, it would certainly bring up the argument by now that it had probable cause to believe there was evidence of the crime (possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute) based on the informants tip. Whether an informants tip is sufficient for establishing probable cause depends on the Gates totality of the circumstances test, where there should be particularized facts that show inclined all the circumstances, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.To simply say that the drugs are stored somewhere in the church is not inevitably enough to establish probable cause. Even if it was enough to establish probable cause, DD certainly had time to render a warrant before searching the church. Accordingly, by the tim e DD opened the drawer, a speak to would likely find that DD committed a search, and anything she found therein wou d be suppress certainly ed. The detense woul d take this one step turtner and argue that opening the bible was a search, even if opening the drawer wasnt.DD would have needed to get a warrant to open and search the bible. Accordingly, a court would likely find that DD illegally searched Bs drawer when she opened the drawer and opened the bible, and the ocaine would likely be moderate as evidence to be used against B. A court would likely similarly suppress the cocaine, spreadsheets, and specie found in the room next to the office. The defense would argue that B had both a subjective and reasonable, objective expectation of privacy in this room (Katz) and that DD had no warrant that allowed her to legally enter this area.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.