Case of the bad boyfriend

docx

School

The University of Newcastle *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

6008

Subject

Law

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by AtKinsons

Case of the Bad Boyfriend Introduction According to the Fourth Amendment, there are certain cases where a government agency is not obligated to adhere to the Fourth Amendment unless in situations where the defendants present proof on a need for respecting privacy laws. Certain cases allow no expectation for individual privacy for personal effects and property in the public. Items held in plain view are some of the applications of no expectation of privacy hence no protection as offered by the Fourth Amendment. For instance, under exigent circumstances, law enforcement is not obligated to present a warrant while knocking down the door. Case analysis Probable cause is a specific requirement where law enforcement has enough reasons to conduct an arrest, seize any property or item based on a crime conducted. For a law enforcement officer to obtain the warrant, the officer has to acknowledge through an affidavit the facts relating to arresting an individual or seize items after a search (Hawkins, 2019). Probable cause must be presented after the activity to show the prosecutors the reasons for conducting a warrantless arrest or seizure. In the case of Joe, the officers indicate that there were noises from the house, hence a public safety concern for conducting the warrantless search (Hawkins, 2019). Joe and Linda, the occupants of the house, have a criminal record thus the officers could use the fact that the criminal record and the noise from the house warrants a warrantless arrest. The exclusionary rule gives the courts the mandate of dismissing crucial evidence that may have been obtained after a constitutional violation to deter misconduct in law enforcement. There are instances where the exclusionary rule is not applicable. For instance, in a case Utah v. Strieff, the court dismissed Strieff’s request to have any evidence collected before

presenting the warrant suppressed (Utah v. Strieff, 2016). In Utah v. Strieff, the police had quality evidence based on the anonymous tip-off of the defendant’s residence conducting a drug operation. Two officers conducted an observation for a week and noted some suspicious activities. Strieff was arrested after exiting the suspicious house and was discovered to have an outstanding warrant of arrest. According to the evidence presented by the police, the state dismissed Strieff’s objections on the basis that there was an existing warrant thus the officer had adequate reasons to arrest or search the premises (Utah v. Strieff, 2016). The law enforcers in the case of Joe received information from a credible source of the existence of cocaine in the premise. The fact that the police had the probable cause to search, the exclusionary rule may not assist Joe in having the evidence disregarded as a result of a warrantless seizure. Both Joe and Linda had a criminal record, screams from a house previously reported to have domestic abuse with children inside, and the informant is a credible source hence the warrantless seizure is acceptable (Turner, Hemmens, & Matz, 2016). Exigent circumstances give law enforcement a reason to enter anywhere to prevent harm to other people or the destruction of quality and resourceful evidence. Linda has previously reported cases of domestic abuse against Joe, Joe is also known to have a tendency of domestically abusing other people based on earlier relationships (Hawkins, 2016). In such a case, the police have adequate reasons to intervene the moment a scream is heard from the house. For instance, in a case Kentucky v. King, the police used exigent circumstances to defend and prove reasonable actions against King (Kentucky v . King, 2010). In the case, the law enforcers had observed the defendant for some time until the defendant entered into an apartment where the police suspected to be a drug-dealing house. The officers announced their intent to enter the premise at the door. Suddenly, noises from inside signaled the need to force the way into the

house to prevent further destruction of quality evidence (Hawkins, 2016). In such a case, the police may use exigent circumstances to secure crucial evidence that can be used during the trial. The same case applies to Joe v. law enforcers where the police use the fact that there were noises in the apartment hence the need to enter to rescue the situation (Turner, Hemmens, & Matz, 2016). The police are required to announce to the occupants before making an entrance. In Joe’s case, the police violated the requirements since no announcements were made during entry. Using such claims, the police may not use the exigent circumstances to use the cash, scales, or packaging materials collected after the search. Based on the plain view policy, law enforcers are allowed to use any evidence available to the public in plain view. The cocaine seized by the Sergeant cannot be used during the trial since the evidence was not in plain view (Hawkins, 2016). Cocaine dealing or possession is a criminal activity. However, using the packaging materials, cash, and scales as evidence for arrest according to the plain view rule, the officers have probable cause to explore the house effectively to obtain any extra evidence warrantless. For instance, in a case in New Jersey v. Gonzales, the defendant was convicted for the possession of heroin (State v. Xiomara Gonzales, 2016). However, the officers were pursuing the defendant since there were reports the defendant was on the way to collect drugs. On stopping Gonzales for not paying the toll fees, heroin bricks were in plain view meaning the officers had the right to seize the evidence. In the current case involving Joe, the police had the right to enter the bedroom after obtaining crucial evidence connected to the items in plain view (Turner, Hemmens, & Matz, 2016). Exigent circumstances allow law enforcers to use reasonable doubts to seize any material connected to the crime. Conclusion

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

In conclusion, the exclusionary clause discourages law enforcers from misusing the law and to respect individual privacy. Fourth Amendments ensures provides for the opportunity for the public to enjoy privacy unless there are adequate reasons to make an arrest warrantless. The fact that Joe and Linda had a criminal record, screams from a residence previously identified to have been reported of domestic abuse and the plain view context incriminates Joe and Linda of drug dealing.

References Hawkins, D. (2016). Admissibility of Evidence-4th Amendment. Wisconsin Law Journal . Hawkins, D. (2019). Probable Cause Warrantless Search. Wisconsin Law Journal . Kentucky v . King , (2010). 302 S.W 3d 649. Retrieved from: https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/09-01272qp.pdf State v. Xiomara Gonzales , (2016). 223 N.J 164. Retrieved from: https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/opinions/webcast/a_5_15.pdf Turner, J. R., Hemmens, C., & Matz, A. K. (2016). Is it reasonable? A legal review of warrantless searches of probationers and parolees. Criminal justice policy review , 27 (7), 684-701. Utah v. Strieff, (2016). 14-1373 U.S 321. Retrieved from: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf

Case of the bad boyfriend

Related Documents