Chapter 9 Case Analysis 1 &3
1.What arguments did the defendant make that the lawful search was connected to the unlawful search and thus was “ tainted”? Do you agree with the argument? ( United States v. Jenkins) The argument that the defendant had was that the affidavit for Room 127, when examined without the tainted information, is a “bare bones” affidavit that does not indicate “a ‘fair probability’ that evidence of a crime will be located on the premises of the proposed search. I disagree with the argument the affidavit for Room 127 contained sufficient facts and circumstances that amounted to a probability that evidence could be found in the room some of those facts included the payment of cash, the suspicious driving pattern of the Suburban, the criminal history of the renter of the room and the owner of the Suburban, the police canine's positive indication for narcotics in the Suburban, and the marijuana found on Jenkins. The police officers also told the judge of the evidence found without a search warrant in the room. That information did not alter the judges decision in any way since with all that information and the tainted evidence set aside they still had enough facts and circumstances for a search warrant and conviction of Jenkins.
3.Can an airline passenger who has passed through an airport screening gate object to a subsequent secondary search and, if so, suppress evidence of illegal drugs discovered in the search? (United States v. Aukai 2007) According to United States v. Aukai a airline passenger can not object to a secondary search because it is not going against there constitutional right of illegal search and seizure if conducted the right way because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and to prevent hijackings. as well as passengers do not need...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document