Questions and Answers
Your Questions About In Plain View Doctrine
ok i need help?
There is a story that i would like you to answer any of the following questions to
SO MY QUESTIONS TO YOU ARE-
1 DOES PROBABLE CAUSE OR REASONABLE SUSPICION EXIST? EXPLAIN
2 DO THE LEVELS OF PROOF JUSTIFY A STOP AND FRISK OR AN ARREST? EXPLAIN
3 DETERMINE IF MIRANDA WARNINGS WERE PROPERLY GIVEN
4 DID PROPER VEHICLE INVENTORY SEARCH OCCUR?HOW DO YOU KNOW?
5 DID THE OFFICER FOLLOW PROPER FOR SEISURE FOR PEOPLE/THINGS?
6 WHICH DOCTRINE APPLIES- PLAIN VIEW OPEN FIELDS OR ABANDONMENT?
7 DETERMINE THE JURISDICTION AND THE VENUE
8 SHOULD DNA INQUIRY BE USED IN THIS CASE?
9 IDENTIFY ELEMENTS FROM THE FACT PATTERN
CHOOSE ANY OF THE 9 TO ANSWER
JUST LET ME KNOW WHICH ONE YOU ARE ANSWERING THANK YOU
On friday, August 26, 2005 officer todd melbourne of the phoenix police department drove his cruiser behind a red honda civic heading nothbound on hayden road the civic had a crack in the windshield one headlight was out and traveled 5mph under the speed limit officer melbourne also noticed the vehicle tags were two months past due he turned his cruiser lights on and the civic pulled over to the right officer melbourne called the licence plate and found the registered owner of the vehicle jacob tierney had an arrest warrant for missing a mandatory probationary hearing three weeks back he called for back-up and exited the police cruiser at the officer walked toward the civic the driver hit the gas and continued down the road officer melbourne got in his car and advised dispatch that he was involed in a police chase and raced after the civic just 100 yards from the start of the chase the civic stopped along the side of the road
officer melbourne pulled behind the vehicle as the two men exited and ran in opposite directions the officer chased after the man heading east through a parkafter a series of bushes fences and backyards however melbourne was unable to bring the man into custody both of the vehicles occupants had escaped officer keving sedwick had arrived by the time officer melbourne returned to the abandoned cars sedwick advised melbourne that a rape had only occurred a few mileds away from their location the suspects were identified as twomales in their late twenties wearing dark clothes officer melbourne described the two males as wearing dark clothes both of the civic’s doors were left open and officers melbourne and sedwick searched the contents of the vehicle officer sedwick found an arizona drivers licence on the floor near the gas pedal issued to bruce moreno oficer mebourne found a black hooded sweatshirt and a pair of joggin socks on the floor the officers impouned the vehicle.
two detectives patrick jones and james morales were assigned to work the case they were given the details of the crime the suspects and the location of the victim who was in the hospital recievign treatment and forensic exam during questioning the victim identified moreno from the driver licence picture and tierney from a mug shot she told detectives her light blue shirt was ripped off of her while they also forced off her socks and runnig shoes just before leaving the victim also overheard the suspects saying that they were leaving somewhere the detectives called for back up and headed to tierneys home jones and morales arrived at tierneys residence where through the window could see a woman with a cut across her face the detectives knocked on the door and entered the house without a warrent or consent from the neighbors four people were sitting on the couch two unidentified women with moreno and tierney drug paraphernalia a semi automatic gun a knife and a blue ripped shirt
were on the coffee table the four individuals were cuffed and placed under arrest moreno and tirney were taken outside and read their miranda rights the detectives then questioned the two men about the shirt and the alleged rape the women were question about the drugs and weapons on the table which they confessed to having in their possesion once the women appeared before the magistrate they were also informed their miranda rights all parties were taken to maricopa county jail for pocessing tierney and moreno were charged with rape and pocession of narcotics
Do your own homework.
Is it legal for police to enter a motel room without a warrant?
My girlfriend’s newphew was set up by a confidential informant in which a purchase was made for one 8 ball of ice. Immediately after the purchase officers bombarded the motel room without a warrant. The informant left the motel door open but contraband was not in plain view that could be seen from outside the motel room. Did probable cause exist to enter the motel without a warrant after the purchase was made by the informant? (who at that time was not yet previously deemed reliable) I do not agree with the sale of illegal drugs I just believe that under the circumstances her nephew could have all evidenced suppressed under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Does anyone have any advise to help settle this dispute between me and her nephew’s grandmother?
Personally I am glad he is jail and I hope he never gets out this question is only out of curiousity
In order for probable cause to exist the informant must have been deemed reliable in the past. Motel are protected under the same 4th Amendment rights as houses and cars. I am not on his side I just think they messed up. Who am I ?just a guy that got myself out two years early when two lawyers said it couldn’t be done
YES. The police can make a warrant-less arrest provided that the accused is either charged within 48 hours of a possible crime he or she committed or is released pending further investigation.
If the accused is not charged with a crime, the police have another option, which is a JDPC or Judicial Determination of Probable Cause, which allows the accused to be held without being charged pending further investigation.
On another note: ICE IS NOT NICE!!!
Do you believe our freedom of speech is in jeopardy?
Our Founding Fathers knew that once our freedom of speech fell, all our other rights would fall like dominoes. They wrote: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech….”
Peter Kirsanow, National Review Online, believes our attention given to the Fairness Doctrine proposed by some in congress is urgent: “Imposition of some form of the Fairness Doctrine likely will be one of the Democrats’ agenda items for the first 100 days of the new administration.”
Newsmax: “You can burn the flag, put four-letter-word bumper stickers on your car, commit lewd acts on-stage, play profane rap music loudly on your car radio, produce, rent and distribute the most disgusting filth in broad daylight and on the Internet in plain view of minors and even use taxpayer dollars to depict Jesus suspended in bodily waste.”
“But when it comes to shutting down conservative thoughts and opinions, now that they have grabbed the reins of power, liberals are making control over the content of speech a top priority!”
If you are liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican, you should be concerned about preserving our right to freedom of speech, because that is the first, most basic right awarded us by our Founding Fathers to preserve all our other freedom.
Yes the fairness doctrine scares me! As a matter of fact I am sending letters and emails to our politicians to ask them to vote against it. Those who only listen to the main stream media only hear the liberal side to every issue- they have even admitted (finally) that they were in the tank for Obama. Chris Matthews even said he considers it his job to make Obama’s presidency a success.
I caught a police officer going threw my mail without a warrant. what is my remedy?
I live in NY… I had the police called on me by a room mate, they entered my home to find the reason they were called was false. One officer said “You are not being attacked, no one is impeding you, get your stuff and hurry, this is not our job”. The four police officers did not leave my home immediately and instead toured my home without a warrant. My home security tape caught a police officer going threw my mail and taking down the information on the mail. The mail was stacked and only the top letter was in plain view. The whole time one police officer walked through my home he made negative comments about my color scheme, the decor, the art, the content of the art and my life style. What would this be… Illegal search or Trespassing? and what is my remedy??
No one was arrested or charged with any crime, or even ticketed. I did how ever receive a letter from the building inspector the following Monday stating that a police officer made a complaint stating there was work being done without a permit and now the city wants to inspect my home. I replied by letter quoting the building codes and clearly stating that the work being done was cosmetic and according to the building codes did not need a permit, hence not requiring an inspection. I would think that this police officers complaint would fall under The Fruit Of The Poisonous Tree Doctrine but that seems to only apply to criminal matters, this would be a civil due to the building inspector complaint I think… although I am not sure.
The city attorney contacted me by mail 30 days later saying they did not consider the matter closed and still may want to inspect my home.
Report him to the chief.
4th Amendment Question?
Question about a word in the 4th Amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
“Secure in their houses, persons, and effects.” What does the effects mean? The way I understand it is personal property…am I right? and if so does that mean that no matter where that property is it is protected under the 4th.
This is in reference to the “Open Fields Doctrine.” The way I understand it, if a persons bag spills out onto a public sidewalk and an officer sees in plain view a drug the drug can be used in court against the person because of the Open Fields Doc.
Thank you both for your answers. I thought so but wanted to make sure my thinking was ok….Thanx
According to my text, Plain view is when illegal items are in plain view on private property, Open fields is when effects are in plain sight on public property. I just needed to make sure that effects were private property. Just trying to get the definitions correct, crossing my “i”s and dotting my “t”s.
Yes..since its in plain site..as long as the officer didnt spill the bag himself..so yes that is open and fair game in court..now if the drug could be some thing legal..then the office must show that he believed it to be illegal ..good luck..
Powered by Yahoo! Answers