Circumstantial Evidence Case Study

be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Cornell University Law School, No Date).” The first part of this section states that no warrant will be given unless there is probable cause that will lead the judge or magistrate to believe that there is a very good reason to invade the privacy of a citizen. If there is not enough evidence for the judge to justify the signing of a search warrant, then the officer needs to try and find more evidence that will bolster his or her case. A search warrant is also supposed to specify where the officers will be searching, what they are searching for, and what evidence they might seize. When writing the search warrant, the writer will try to be as broad as they can in their wording so as to cover more ground. For instance, if there was an officer attempting to obtain a warrant for a suspected drug dealers home. Here is what some of the text may read: ‘Items to be searched for and seized: any and all evidence in regards to the use,
Direct and circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence differs from direct evidence in that direct evidence can directly support the case and prove probable cause on its own where circumstantial evidence is when the evidence indirectly supports the case. An example of circumstantial evidence would be something like “I observed the suspect enter the victim’s house, and I then heard a shot. I saw the suspect calmly walk out of the house, furtively look around, get in his car and drive off.” This differs from direct evidence, as direct evidence requires you to observe the act as it happens. This statement would look something like this: “I observed the suspect walk up to the victim, argue with him, and then pull out a gun and shoot the victim. He then ran to his car and drove off.” These are two very different statements, and mean two very different