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 circumstances—the need to prevent destruction of evidence—justified the warrantless entry. Respondent entered a conditional guilty plea‚ reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling‚ and the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed.” The Supreme Court of Kentucky also assumed that there was an exigent circumstance but it still
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
the resident does not have to allow the police to enter the resident. The resident can stop answering questions at any time during the interview. Residents who choose to answer question and attempt to destroy evidence put themselves at risk for a warrantless search‚ under exigent circumstances. Evidence in plain view rule applies. Decision: In an 8-1 decision‚ The US Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Kentucky Supreme Court and remanded the case for further proceedings that are consistent with
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
admitting that he had conversed with President Arroyo during the canvassing period--after the votes had been counted. He denied that President Arroyo instructed him to cheat in the 2004 elections. He had since appeared in House hearings on the wiretapping controversy. -http://www.gmanews.tv/story/27477/Hello-Garci-scandal Case Close on “Hello Garci” issue MANILA‚ Feb. 16 — Election lawyer Romulo Macalintal on Tuesday asserted that the issue on the so-called "Hello Garci" tape had its closure
Premium Hello Garci scandal
The police do not need a warrant to enter a home if they smell burning marijuana‚ knock loudly‚ announce themselves and hear what they think is the sound of evidence being destroyed‚ the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in an 8-to-1 decision. The issue as framed by the majority was a narrow one. It assumed there was good reason to think evidence was being destroyed‚ and asked only whether the conduct of the police had impermissibly caused the destruction. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.‚ writing for
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Reasonable suspicion is the act of doing a search because you feel as if there is a problem. And from that‚ I personally think that warrantless searches of students‚ whether by police‚ teachers‚ or principals‚ should be allowed by reasonable suspicion. Let’s set up an example. If a student starts acting strange or suspicious all of a sudden‚ there could be something wrong. If you search their bag or locker and find drugs‚ then you could call the parents and police to solve the problem. The parents
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Recreational drug use
Respondent‚ Tisha Moorer US Government 1A QUESTION PRESENTED 1 .Whether petitioner’s objection to police entry into his shared apartment barred the police from later conducting a warrantless search of the apartment based on the consent of his cotenant obtained after petitioner had been removed from the premises for a domestic violence investigation and then lawfully arrested for prior robbery. 2. Once a co-tenant has expressly told
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Law
Criminal Procedure 1-15-14 Chapter 2. Confessions and Interrogations A. Voluntariness of Confessions -based on the 14th amendment that contains both the Privileges and Immunities Clause‚ DPC (Due Process Clause) and the EPC (Equal Protection Clause). Whether the accused’s will was overborne at the time he confessed? Ct. look at a totality-of-the circumstances analysis- 1. The conditions of the interrogation a. Use of force or threat b. Promise of favor c. Deception or trickery regarding
Premium Miranda v. Arizona United States Constitution Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The case arose when a police officer observed three individuals engaging in conduct which appeared to him‚ on the basis of training and experience‚ to be the “casing” of a store for a likely armed robbery; upon approaching the men‚ identifying himself‚ and not receiving prompt identification‚ the officer seized one of the men‚ (Albanese‚ J. S. Criminal Justice‚ 5th edition p.162) patted the exterior of his clothes‚ and discovered a gun. The Court wrote that the Fourth Amendment was applicable to
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Crime Arrest
Tyler case is important for establishing warrantless searches as part of the initial investigation‚ and that factors from the fire itself inhibited the investigation‚ continuing the original exigency. The question that it did raise‚ however‚ is the definition of “reasonable” as it relates to the investigator to perform warrantless searches. Michigan V. Clifford (1984) ruled that the investigators were prohibited from performing the
Premium Law Management Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
from low ranking employees of the stock this firm wants to invest in or friends from another firm that has the upper hand‚ Galleon Group was proven to have insider trading going on and with the help of wiretapping. An interview stated that it is tough to what is inside information. When wiretapping a conversation between two stokers‚ it is almost impossible to determine what you are looking for. When searching for a ‘hot tip’ it is better to look out for key words. Like how in the beginning‚ a man
Premium Stock market Stock Finance