Terry Vs Dickerson Case Study

1. When Stan Johnson told Trooper Cummings to come in he gave him permission to enter his home and the opportunity to begin a conversation. I do not believe that the police acted in an improper manner in this case. Stan identified himself, invited the officer into his home, and proceeced to distribute cocaine to the undercover cop. I agree with the court decision to not dismiss the case because they were able to prevent the misuse and intent to sell drugs to other people. 2.

Early the next morning as the sun was coming up, a freight train heading from Folsom passed by the robbery scene. A man was seen about 100 yards from the train, waving his hat on the end of his gun, as a signal. When the train was stopped and the conductor and brakeman approached Blackjack, but then Blackjack drew a gun on them. The two said we only came to help but then Thomas said no boys I am done take me in.

[1] Decision: In this case it was found that the officer did have probable cause to believe that the crime of possession of the cocaine was that of Pringle. Due to this the arrest did not contravene the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. So, the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland was reversed, leaving the case remanded for any further proceedings and is not inconsistent with the opinion of the Court. [1] Comment: This case shows a warrantless search and arrest based on what the officer sees with his belief that a crime is being committed or that it has been committed. Resources: 1.

The following is a summary of Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), including information pertaining to the facts of Hendrick’s criminal history, the procedural history of the cases leading up to the Supreme Court decision, the issues surrounding the Supreme Court decision, and the precedent that has been set for future similar cases. Leroy Hendricks, the subject of this legal matter, is an individual who has exhibited a pattern of inappropriate sexual behaviors throughout his lifetime. Hendricks claims that his sexual misconduct first began in 1950 when he was twenty years old and he exposed himself to two females; shortly after in 1957 he received a criminal charge for indecent exposure, for exposing himself to another female victim.

The boys asked to see his guns, so he opened his security safe. Olm told police that he does not leave his guns loaded. He opened the case and showed them his .357 Magnum revolver, which had been wrapped in a sleeve. He handed it to his nephew and then to his son. They thought it was cool because it had a big scope on

Terry v. Ohio or “Stop and Frisk” or “Terry Stop” or “Pat Down”, how about we call it the “McFadden”. There are tens of thousands of people that do not really care what we call it. Maybe, we name it after one of them? However, the Supreme Court’s monumental case law, “Terry v. Ohio”, has saved tens of thousands of lives. Furthermore, this court ruling has aided the law enforcement with their first priority, which is “protect”, moreover, this ruling has aided with the second priority, which is “serve”.

The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).

School officials are not allowed to conduct searches on students without probable cause; and random searches are not permissible according to The Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that a person has the right to be secure in their homes, and personal effects and to prevent them against un-probable search cases. For example, these laws and policies affect school leaders decision-making procedures by stating that school leaders must have probable cause to conduct searches against students for specific incidents and locations including any property to be taken from the students. For example, in the case of New Jersey v T. L. O. (1985) addressed the issue of can a search by a school official be called a "search" based on the Fourth Amendment

Colorado and Unreasonable Search and Seizure in California, attorney Robert M. Desky states, “The United States Supreme Court, in Wolf v. Colorado, ' held for the first time that "the security of one 's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police-which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment,” Desky continues, “But at the same time the Court held that the states need not observe the federal rule which excludes from criminal prosecutions evidence obtained by illegal search. The majority opinion explained away the federal exclusionary rule as "judicial implication" based upon the Fourth Amendment, while Justice Black, in a concurring opinion, characterized the rule as a "judicially created rule of evidence," a description which seems more consistent with the Court 's suggestion that it could be changed by Congress.” According to Mr. Desky’s statement, the court believed that the exclusionary rule, which determines whether or not evidence is excluded from a trial, was left only up to the federal government and not the states. Therefore the state courts could not exclude any illegal evidence from a

Miranda vs. Arizona Introduction The Supreme Court case of Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) was a significant case for both law enforcement agencies and the citizens of America. This case would be the milestone that changed how law enforcement agencies handled citizens that were being detained for crimes that were committed. The results from this case have been constantly reviewed and gained further information on how the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments are interpreted. While this was not the first case that brought up violations of Constitutional Rights, this case would set a standard that future Supreme Court Justices would have to uphold.

Consisting of two prongs, (1) home, the validation of the place and intention of the search, and (2) expectation of privacy, whether or not the officers trespassed on the property and used the dog illegitimately, allows for the analysis of the Fourth Amendment and the determination of a violation thereof. Using case law from cases such as Katz v. United States, United States v. Jones, and Kyllo v. United States, each prong of this test is carefully analyzed and easily supported. Thus, using the logic in the creation of the majority opinion proves to be the strongest analysis of the case developing a clear and concise answer to whether or not a dog sniffing for drugs outside a home is a search prohibited by the Fourth Amendment of the

Ohio is a case, which from the start should not have happened. The prosecution was a Ms. Dollree Mapp. On May 23rd, 1957, police officers in Cleveland, Ohio, received an anonymous tip by phone that Virgil Ogletree, a numbers operator who was wanted for questioning in the bombing of rival numbers racketeer and future boxing promoter Don King's home three days earlier, might be found at Mapp's house, as well as illegal betting slips and equipment employed in the "California Gold" numbers operation set up by Mapp's boyfriend Edward Keeling. Officers went to her home and demanded access to it, Ms. Mapp after consulting her lawyer by phone, refused to admit the officers without a search warrant. The officers left leaving one behind to watch the house from across the street.

Back in 1975, there was a major case called, Payton V. New York. Theodore Payton was suspected of murdering a gas station manager, they found evidence within his home that connected him with the crime. What caused the problem was the fact New York had a law that allowed unwarranted searches if the person was a suspect. Based off the oral argument presented by Oyez, the police said it didn't count as the evidence because it was in public view when entering the home. It had to be appealed before it was determined as unconstitutional.

Use of force is the amount of force used in a given situation during police work. The police are supposed to follow the continuum when it come to using force. This continuum is known as the “Use of Force Continuum”. Despite this, use of force is still a constant problem in policing. There are many cases where a cop are sued for using more force than necessary, sometimes on purpose and sometimes by accident.

41. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution.