Summary: Immigrant Vs Defore

570 Words3 Pages
Facts: The defendant (Defore) was arrested by a police officer for stealing a coat. If he did commit the offense, it was considered a misdemeanor of petit larceny because the overcoat did not cost more than fifty dollars. The defendant was in the hallway of his apartment complex when he was arrested. After Defore was in custody, the arresting police officer went into Defore’s residence and searched it. During his search the officer found a bag, which contained a blackjack (a short, lead-filled club with a flexible handle). Procedural History: After trial, Defore was acquitted of the petit larceny charge. While this was going on, he had been indicted in a second offense for possessing the blackjack. Before the trial, he motioned to suppress…show more content…
It’s not something that should be protected against a nosy onlooker. There is no connection between the lack of a search warrant and the constitutional freedom against involuntary disclosure. The weapon would have been just as unlawful and involuntary if there was a search warrant. The warrant does not advance the idea that the defendant will be covered against disclosing his own crime. Actually, the warrant is used to urge him to disclose it. Contraband items that are owned without a right and are subject to seizure may be submitted into evidence without infringing upon the rights of self-incrimination, whether the seizure has been made with or without a warrant. Defore made it clear in his objection that the weapon was contraband, but the hat and bag were not. Yet, all of the items were submitted into evidence together. Defore’s objection did not favor one item over the other. If any of the items were admissible, his objection does not succeed. In this situation it is not necessary to find out whether the items are lawfully owned. There are situations when items, not contraband at all, may be seized and submitted into evidence. In this case, if the coat had been priced fifty-one dollars rather than fifty dollars, it would have been a lawful arrest because the police officer might apprehend the defendant if a felony had been committed and there was a reasonable cause to think that he did it. In that case, there might

More about Summary: Immigrant Vs Defore

Open Document