In the state of California Police may search your cellphone or conduct a search of your computer or hard drive, tablet computer, or other electronic device without a warrant, with consent of the individual, carrying a device across an international border and or in a crisis circumstance, where police can demonstrate a quick need to inquiry a gadget to seek after an escaping suspect, or help somebody who is genuinely harmed or debilitated with imminent injury. Example: Andrea and José are two police detectives working undercover to infiltrate a criminal street gang . Members of the gang they are working with find out about their identity. They attempt to kill José, but he escapes.
Should cell phone companies surrender records to authorities in criminal Investigations? Many people heavily believe cell phone companies should surrender records to authorities in criminal investigations for many reasons. For one it would help solve crimes and investigations easier. For example Lake Station Mayor Keith Soderquist trial was being looked at but as federal attorneys connected various pieces of evidence to tie withdrawals from his campaign fund and the city 's food pantry to dozens of gambling trips by using cell phone records. With cell phone use this can also allow to see the calls made and time of ATM withdrawals.
Three correction officers created a sadistic secret society on a Rikers Island cellblock, ordering prisoners to extort and beat other inmates. Officers Michael McKie, Khalid Nelson and Denise Albright called their fight club “The Program,” and the teens they recruited as enforcers were called “The Team” (Rayman, 2009). Team members were allowed to extort commissary money, clothing and phone privileges from other city jail inmates. Those who didn’t cooperate when they were asked “are you with it” were beaten and Mr. McKie and Mr. Nelson set the time, place and punishment (Rayman, 2009). I believe that the purpose of this program is for the correctional officers to extort money from other inmates for their own personal gains.
He was found guilty because of a murder case of his friend Perry. The evidence that convicted James was three hair samples that found in James 's van, the RCMP said they were Harder 's. But before James’s arrest, he committed a crime along with his friend Perry. They were running a “chop shop,” they cut apart stolen vehicles and sold the parts. In November 1989, the police arrested both James and Perry.
The facts, interview, forensic reports and evidence leads us to believe this. Ronnie Ingram was convicted for the recent robbery case, the gun was found at his girlfriend’s house and it is the same gun that was used in the 1989 homicide. My original plan was similar to what I actually did to solve this homicide. I was able to collect police reports, evidence, forensic reports, photos, police sketches, autopsy reports and toxicology reports. I was able to identify and conduct interviews with all of the suspects as well check MVA (Maryland Vehicle Accident) records, NCIC (National Crime Information Center) records, police records and traced weapons that were found.
Memorandum To: Ms. Singh From: Clark & Clark Attorneys Date: July 26, 2015 Subject: Misdemeanor vs. Felony Ms. Singh, you have expressed your concerns about the possibility of a long prison sentence and possible capital punishment after being arrest for breach of peace in which is classified as a misdemeanor not a felony. This memo will explain the differences between a felony and misdemeanor, and inform you on all the facts on your case. The report stated that your boyfriend became jealous and punched the other man.
The side of this debate that supports less strict criteria for warrantless search of the digital information of cell phones is law enforcement, which is made up of various entities that track American citizen’s data to keep the country safe. Government lawyers and supports of warrantless cell phone searches argue that “searching a cell phone is no different than search other items commonly found on a person at the time of arrest.” In addition, they point out that prohibiting these searches would hurt prosecutors’ chances of proving guilt in drug trafficking cases because of the widespread use of cell phones by drug dealers in order to move their products. At surface level it seems that the Court has just required police to get warrants before checking cell phones, but the ruling could lead to questions about the NSA’s capacity to conduct warrantless search on American’s data. Government institutions, primarily the NSA, have used “section 215 of the Patriot Act” to analyze American’s phone data, but this ruling could show that the Court is attempting to better protect the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens by stopping
For my research on how the contextual themes concepts can result in criminal justice malfeasance I selected the case of State v. Steele, 138 Ohio St.3d 1, 2013-Ohio-2470. This case involved police officer Julian Steele of the Cincinnati, Ohio police department and his indictment on ten counts of police misconduct, including abduction, intimidation, extortion, rape, and sexual battery. Officer Steele abused his legal power to interrogate, arrest and detain a witness by knowingly filing a materially false complaint in order to influence or intimidate a witness; and abducting her minor child from school with the intent of charging the minor child with a robbery felony ” (State v. Steele, 138 Ohio St.3d 1, 2013-Ohio-2470). Due to the nature of this case and its involvement of the minor children involved, the court documents refer to the subjects by initials only.
According to the article, Lumpkin received charges for selling weapons to known criminals in the area and is currently in police custody (Heisig 1-5). The officer sold multiple rifles and a bulletproof vest to people who could potentially harm other citizens. This shows that police officers who are not
A later "rebuttal" to statements that the blade was illicit, prosecutors argued that Gray was "wrongfully arrested" well before the officers realized that he had a blade, and without "probable cause." On May 21st, 2015, a grand jury summoned the officers on the "vast majority" of the first set of allegations filed by Mosby of the particular case of the charges of "unlawful detainment and false capture" and added charges of "reckless endangerment" to every one of the officers involved. Gray 's death "resulted in series of protest." On
The main facts of the case California v. Greenwood are that in the beginning of 1984, the police of Laguna Beach, California had information that gave them reason to believe that a certain person, Billy Greenwood, was dealing drugs. A police officer named Jenny Stracner told the garbage collectors to bring the trash from Greenwood’s residence to the police station so that they could go through the garbage to find if there was evidence of drug dealing. They did. They then obtained a warrant to search the house, and found more evidence. The police then arrested Greenwood.
In a decision made by the United States Supreme court, it was decided “that motor vehicles deserve a reduced expectation of privacy (Atkinson, 2011). This decision is in response to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states that “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.” The case of Elliot Watson delves into why no warrant was needed to search the trunk of his car. The arrest of Mr. Watson and the search of his vehicle were valid.
Per this rule, the issue is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. David Riley was driving with expired tags when he was arrested. The police impounded the car when they realized that his license was suspended. Policy states that when a car is impounded, an inventory search must be conducted. He was arrested for possession of loaded firearms.
FACTS: The defendant (Lake) encountered Clarke sitting on the beach and he demanded Clarke’s white car keys for several times. But, when Clarke refused, Lake pulled out a gun and walked Clarke out to the water. At that time, Clarke saw his friend (Croaker) and he called out to warn her. Thereafter, Lake saw her and demanded her car’s keys. When she refused, he held the gun to Croaker’s head and she gave him the keys.
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) Facts: Mr. Otis McDonald, a denizen of Chicago, wanted to get a handgun for the purpose of self-defense. McDonald had lived in that particular Chicago neighborhood for several decades, and his decision to purchase a firearm was predicated upon his increasing frustration with the rising crimes rates of that neighborhood. He had even in fact been the victim of thefts and break-ins on numerous occasions. Legally, he already owned rifles and shotguns.