ipl-logo

Cornie V. Arnie Case Study

236 Words1 Page

1. What constitutional rights were violated? How were they violated? Breaking and entering, illegal search, and questioning a suspect without informing him of his rights were the constitutional rights violated in this scenario. Arnie and the officer entered into the suspects home without a warrant or probable cause and they then proceeded to search his house illegal and used the evidence in the house to question him without using informing him of his rights. 2. What would have been the proper investigative steps to take? The right investigative steps would be to watch the man and when they had probable cause or enough evidence for a warrant then they could take action. They could ask to come in and if he lets them in and they find something in plain view then they can use that to arrest him. They should inform him of his rights before they ask him any questions. …show more content…

If the suspect had refused to answer questions and demanded that he be appointed a lawyer, what “pressures” could Arnie have placed on the suspect? Arnie could tell him this is only going to make it worse for you. Arnie could also say that with or without a lawyer the witnesses, fingerprints, gun, and money are enough for him to go to jail. If he cooperates now then all of that can be avoided and he can tell the judge he was

Show More
Related

  • Maryland Vs Pringle Case Study

    1331 Words  | 6 Pages

    Given the totality of circumstances, an officer has satisfied the probable cause standard to arrest an individual believing that a felony is or has occurred in the officer’s presents. This type of warrantless arrest does not violate an individual’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Decision: Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the Court’s opinion on this case. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that citizens “are to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” This right is pushed down to the state level by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ensures that warrantless arrests can be conducted by police officers when the standard of probable cause has been met.

    Read More

  • California Vs. Greenwood Case Study

    478 Words  | 2 Pages

    The case involves the question of whether or not the police were within their rights to search the trash that was left at the curbside without a warrant. The amendment

    Read More

  • Maryland Vs Pringle Case Study

    743 Words  | 3 Pages

    The majority opinion discussed the Fourth Amendment and explains now it provides the the ability to arrest individuals without a warrant when the officers have probable cause that a suspect has committed a criminal offense. During this traffic stop, the arresting officer determined a crime had occurred. It was up to the court to determine if the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle. Chief Justice Rehnquist determined that the arresting officers proved a crime occurred and there was probable cause to determine Pringle should be arrested. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, when three people are in the car where drugs are located and the owner of the drugs is not clear with no one admitting possession, it is reasonable for the officers to believe that either one or all of the occupants of the vehicle committed the offense.

    Read More

  • Billy Greenwood And Dyanne Van Houten Summary

    602 Words  | 3 Pages

    In 1988, California v. Billy Greenwood and Dyanne Van Houten was about a suspecting of selling and using drugs in Mr. Greenwood house a narcotic officer told the man to bring her the trash bag which Greenwood had placed out the street for pick up, but as the officer search the bags she found drug paraphernalia which was used as evidence to convict Mr. Greenwood but the lower court revoked it because she search the trash bag without a warrant and that was a violation of the fourth amendment. but the trash bags was placed on the street were any child or animal can unseal it so he could not argue about his privacy if it was out in the police for anything or any person to expose the content of the bags but the court stated “ the police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public “ this means

    Read More

  • Felony Argument Against Oleg For Order Violation

    234 Words  | 1 Pages

    Auburn Police Records department checked Oleg 's criminal history for prior order violations and it showed Oleg had two guilty convictions for order violations. Because Oleg had two guilty convictions for order violations, there was probable cause to arrest Oleg for Felony Violation of a DV Protection Order. I completed a Superform for Oleg. I included the form in the case jacket, copied it to the V:drive and faxed a copy to SCORE jail. Officer Lewis transported Oleg to SCORE jail to be

    Read More

  • Chrisman V. Supreme Court Case Analysis

    428 Words  | 2 Pages

    The student’s voluntarily provided the officer with additional drugs and provided written consent, to a search of the room although they had the right to refuse the search and demand a search warrant. Reasoning/Analysis of the Court The Court held that the "plain view" exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permitted the officers to seize clearly incriminating evidence discovered "in a place where the officer has a right to be." The Court held that the officer had a right to be at the first students’ elbow at all times. The officer obtained lawful access to the student’s dorm room and was free to seize incriminating evidence.

    Read More

  • Exclusionary Rule In The Weeks V. United States Case

    475 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.

    Read More

  • What Crime Is Ms. Mapp Case Related?

    506 Words  | 3 Pages

    To which amendment to the constitution does the case relate? Mapp appealed her case to the Supreme Court stating that the 4th Amendment should be incorporated. The 4th Amendment prohibits against unreasonable searches and seizures, and during Mapp’s arrest, the police came to the founding of the evidence presented in the trial without a warranty. Fourth Amendment states: 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

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Article: Milton Eisenhower Justifies The Internment Of Japanese Americans

    571 Words  | 3 Pages

    Every citizen of the United States has their own person right that protects from the governments abusive power. The Bill of Rights was established to ensure the safety of American citizens but not just American citizens some rights are universal for anyone else. Regardless of the Bill of Rights Law enforcement has violated our rights. The constitutional issue has uplifted and many Americans are outraged. Law enforcement should have not have the right to violate people’s rights even though they need to ensure the welfare of all American citizens.

    Read More

  • No Probable Cause To Arrest Hayes Essay

    551 Words  | 3 Pages

    Where there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes, no consent to go to the police station, and no prior judicial authorization for detaining him, the investigative detention at the station for fingerprinting purposes violated Hayes rights under the Fourth Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Reasoning: The police without a warrant or probable cause removed a subject from his home and transported him to the police station, where he was not free to go, although he was there briefly for questioning, In addition fingerprinted him.

    Read More

  • Wolf V. Colorado Case Brief

    584 Words  | 3 Pages

    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).

    Read More

  • Dk Dbq Analysis

    742 Words  | 3 Pages

    According to the Fourth Amendment, people have the right to be secure in their private property, and may only be searched with probable cause. However, in a recent case, this right was violated by the government. An Oregon citizen, with the initials of DLK, was suspected of growing marijuana in his home. The federal government used a thermal imager to scan his home, and were later given a warrant to physically search his home. However, many remain divided over whether or not this scan was constitutional, as there was no warrant at the time of the scan.

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    890 Words  | 4 Pages

    The problem arose when the police officers said they had not advised Miranda of his right to an attorney. Miranda’s lawyer was concerned that his Sixth Amendment Right had been violated. This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants.

    Read More

  • Case Study: Spinelli V. United States

    519 Words  | 3 Pages

    Gates counsel argued that law enforcement lack of sufficient probable cause for a warrant was a fourth amendment violation. The decision of the Trail Courts, was upheld by The Appellate Court. The court used the example of Spinelli v. United States,

    Read More

  • Miranda Rights Persuasive Speech

    702 Words  | 3 Pages

    For example the people who were being looked for during the time Boston Marathon bombing was not read their rights. There were three guys who were brothers convicted of the crime and two was killed. The other was going to kill himself until he was captured on a boat by police officers. The guy name was Tsarnaev and he was not read his rights, but President Barack Obama said that it was not unconstitutional if it has to do with the war on terror. There was a public safety exception to reading someone their Miranda Rights.

    Read More

More about Cornie V. Arnie Case Study

Open Document