Us Vs Drayton Case Study

Case Procedural History: Roy Caballes tried to suppress the drugs seized in the stop by claiming that the state troopers did not have probable cause to search his vehicle. The trial judge denied the motion to suppress the seized marijuana. The trial judge held that the use of the drug dog did not prolong the duration

In the court case SMYTH v. LUBBERS, 398 F.Supp 777 (1975) the plaintiff’s rooms were searched without a warrant or probable cause by campus police officers that were acting as officials of the state. They seized a substance that was alleged to be marijuana and proceeded to arrest the plaintiffs. The court held that the search and seizure was illegal because, that two of the campus police officers were acting as representatives of the county police at the time, and there are rules in the student handbook at that college in place to protect students from illegal search and seizure, and those rule were not followed. Just like in Jones v. Rohward University, Deary Jones was subjected to an illegal search and seizure. This search and seizure is

Antoine Jones is an owner of a nightclub in the District of Columbia, and he is suspected of trafficking narcotics. The FBI and Metropolitan Police Department, after using various investigative techniques, obtained a warrant to install an electronic tracking device on the vehicle of Jones’s wife within 10 days and in the District of Columbia. On the 11th day, in a parking lot in Maryland, the government installed the GPS system on the vehicle. They tracked the vehicle’s movements for 28 days. Jones was later convicted in March 2007, and in that trial, the jury found him guilty and the District Court sentenced him to life imprisonment. Jones appealed to the appellate court, arguing that the use of

Banks, was the handling of the searches. According to Shade v. City of Farmington (2002), administrators should conduct a search first and then utilize expertise of SRO if evidence is discovered. The administration was not involved in the initial search. In both Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District (1983) and New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) the court deemed it legal to conduct drug searches for probable cause of school lockers and cars in parking lot, so the search of Truant’s belongings was justified if it had been completed by administration first. Ms. Banks should not have conducted any search. The cigarettes and lighter found in the car should be returned to Truant’s parents. Since no drugs were found during the mishandled searches, a drug test should not have been conducted. This was a violation of Truant’s rights. There were no reliable sources corroborating Truant’s use of drugs, nor did any of the searches reveal a reasonable suspicion of his drug

Two police officers entered the bus, and work Bostick with a bright green “raid” jacket and displaying their badges and a gun. At this point, the bus was currently stopped at a brief layover in Fort Lauderdale, the officers were “working the bus” looking for persons who might be carrying drugs. Officers quickly asked for his identification and if they could search his belongings. Bostick gave the officers their consent, even though he knew he was carrying a pound of cocaine. Bostick was arrested and he was charged and convicted of trafficking cocaine (Alexander 2016). However, the problem with this case is that police had no reasonable suspicious to search Bostock’s belongings. They also failed to mention, that he was free to remain silent or to refuse to answer any of the their questions. These case supports her thesis by, officers stereotyping the African American man as a drug war criminal. They had no reason to suggest, that he had drugs and formally chose to search his belongings based on the color of his skin. Also, no reasonable person in that situation could have felt as if they had the right to say no to their items being searched or remaining silent, since Bostick was approached with guns and badges he felt intimidated and fearful to follow officers orders. Later on the U.S. Supreme court reversed the outcome of the case, on the grounds that the

In the case of Illinois vs. Wardlow, many factors contributed to Wardlow’s arrest. Starting with the facts of the case, on September 9, 1995 Sam Wardlow fled after seeing police vehicles covering an area in Chicago where it was known to have high drug trafficking. Two police officers spotted Wardlow, Officers Nolan and Officer Harvey, and once Officer Nolan caught up with Mr. Wardlow, Officer Nolan proceeded to conduct a pat-down search of only the outer layer of clothing, or a “Terry Stop.” Officer Nolan was well aware that in this area, there was almost always a weapon on a suspect that was involved with some type of drug transaction. After conducting the frisk, Officer Nolan squeezed the opaque colored bag that Mr. Wardlow was

The Mapp vs Ohio case was when police officers in a Cleveland got information that a suspect in a bombing case and illegal equipment might be found in Dollree Mapp house. Three officers went to the his house and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to let them in without a search warrant. So Two officers left, and one stayed. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. They had a random paper, and broke in the door. Mapp asked to see the “warrant” and took it from an officer, putting it in her dress. The officers struggled with Mapp and took the fake warrant away from her. They handcuffed her for being “belligerent.” The police did not find the bombing suspect or the betting equipment.They did find pornographic material in a trunk that a previous tenant had left behind. “She was arrested, prosecuted, and found guilty of possession of pornographic

The Supreme Court opinion regarding the actions the officer took in using excessive force was reasonable under the circumstances that Victor Harris had put other drivers and law enforcement officers in danger and concluded that Deputy Scott did not violate the constitutional rights by the use of unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

The Police officers were responding to a 911 call that alleged that two black guys had stole a guys backpack. Browder and his friend were verbally confronted by officers about the accusation. Browder replied to the officers that he did not rob anyone and to check his pockets. The two young men were both searched , but officers failed to find the backpack or the contents of a camera, cash, a credit card or an iPod touch.

Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson leave Ferguson Market and Liquor. Surveillance videoshows Mr. Brown stealing some cigarillos. They walk along West Florissant Avenue and then inthe middle of the street on Canfield Drive. Officer Darren Wilson arrives, alone in his policevehicle. Speaking through his window, he tells the two men to move to the sidewalk. He seesthat Mr. Brown fits the description of a suspect in a convenience store theft. Officer Wilsonmakes a call to the dispatcher about the two men. He positions his S.U.V. to block the two menas well as traffic. There is an altercation between Officer Wilson and Mr. Brown, who isstanding at the window of the vehicle. Officer Wilson fires two shots from inside the vehicle, onelikely grazing Mr. Brown’s thumb, and the other missing him. Mr. Brown runs east. OfficerWilson pursues him on foot. Mr. Brown stops and turns toward Officer Wilson, who also stops.Mr. Brown moves toward Officer Wilson, who fires several more shots. Mr. Brown is fatallywounded. Several witnesses reported seeing an altercation in the S.U.V. between Officer Wilsonand Mr. Brown. Some said Mr. Brown punched Officer Wilson while Mr. Brown was partlyinside the vehicle. At least one witness said no part of Mr. Brown was ever inside the vehicle. Inhis own testimony, Officer Wilson said that Mr. Brown reached into the vehicle and fought forhis gun. Examiners found Mr. Brown’s blood or other DNA outside the driver’s door, outside theleft rear passenger door,

Officers spend years training and devolping key investigate tools, techniques, and continually learning how to be more effective in protecting the public. The Supreme Court affirms that once an officer detains or arrests a person for a weapons violation, tampers with evidence, or drugs; officers are authorized to search areas or vehicles the arrested person was in control of. Arizona v. Johnson established doctrine for the pat and frisk under the following requiremnts: an officer believes he witnessed criminal activity, he or she inititates contact, fearing the individual may have a concealed and dangerous weapon a pat down is conducted. The above case happend in Tucson, AZ while officers were patrolling a neighborhood known for Crip gang member activity. The task force pulled the vehicle over a moving violation, upon making contact with vehicle occupants, a male in the backseat displayed very unusual behavior. The officer also noticed colors associated with Crip gang members, and the officer asked Mr. Johnson to step out and away from the vehicle. He concducted a stop and frisk for his own safety and discovered a handgun. The stop and frisk took an active gang member and handgun off the streets, the may

Is the warrantless search and seizure of Elliot Watson, who was arrested for possession of Marijuana with the intent to distribute, after being detained by Officer Johnson who was on the lookout for a vehicle and kidnapper with the same vehicle and clothing description as Mr. Watsons’ sports coupe car and 5 foot 9 inches tall, brown hair, and brown eyes wearing a white tee-shirt and blue jeans, legal?

Officer had probable cause to affect a traffic stop after he observed defendant following too closely. Defendant's and passenger's behavior after stop provided reasonable suspicion to expand the detention, and a positive drug dog sniff provided basis for search of vehicle.