Terry V. Watson Case Analysis

On 3-19-16, Highway Patrolman Jeremiah Byrd had a traffic stop. The vehicle was occupied by the alleged perpetrators and the alleged victims. The children were in restraint in the maroon Chevrolet Suburban 1500, traveling East on I10, near the mile marker 61. Judith gave the officer a Texas ID card, and it was suspended. Ramiro also have a driver license to the officer. The officer questioned if any illegal narcotics or cash was in the vehicle, and they state it wasn’t. The parents agreed to a verbal consent to check the car. The officer called for back-up, and the K-9 unit came and found an area at the back of the vehicle. The officer noticed a fishing line from an area of a hidden compartment. The area was pried open with a screwdriver, and

In the case, the Court did not see sufficient evidence to support the claim that the police violated the respondent’s Fourth Amendment right, prior to entering the resident. There is no evidence of threats or demands made by the police officers, that would insinuate the officer did anything wrong. Because the police in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency, the Court held that the exigency did in fact justify the warrantless search. The officers re-acted upon suspicion and training (Vile, n.d.).

Our current body of search law is the ongoing process of the communication of legislation, case law, and Constitutional law. “The 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 place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Taylor, Fritsch, & Liederbach2015). Numerous question is still raised on the specific details occurring in the searches and seizures of digital evidence. Overall, the questions focus on whether or not an activity is a "search" and whether a search is "reasonable."

The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. Police deal with search and seizure incidents on a daily basis; unfortunately, numerous mistakes are made and lawsuits result from this type of citizen interaction. One way to prevent an unnecessary lawsuit is to get a search warrant. What if that is not applicable to your situation? There are several search warrant exceptions that may be applied to most investigative incidents.

The case that I have found to write about is the case of Shakeel “Blam” Wiggins and the New York Police Department in New York City which happened in September of 2013. This case was originally tried in the state of New York court in New York City. It was based on the fact that a NYPD cop didn’t properly fill out a search-warrant application that turned up a weapon as well as a handgun and a cocaine cache. Unfortunately, Mr. Wiggins is an accused drug dealer with a prior record and he may likely walk due to “a technicality.” Therefore, the New York City Police Department as well as the New York City police union were very upset because a dangerous person may be back on the streets due to a supple mistake.

On July 4, 1776 the Declaration of Independence was signed and The United States of America declared itself a separate and independent nation. On June 21, 1788 the United States Constitution was made official, replacing the Articles of Confederation. Since its ratification, the Constitution has been amended several times in order to better apply to current times and situations the Founding Fathers could not have predicted. Despite all the changes the Constitution has gone through, its core principles remain.

This is a criminal case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes. Hayes did not give consent to be taken to the police station and be detained plus fingerprint. Therefore, Hayed Fourth Amendment rights were violated and the conviction was overturned.

Facts: This case deals with Clyde Bustamonte, who tried to defraud a check. At 2:40 a.m. local Sunnyvale Police Officer James Rand stopped a vehicle that had a burnt out headlight and license plate light. When Officer Rand approached the vehicle he found that the individuals Joe Alcala, Bustamonte, and Joe Gonzales were in the front seat. In the rear of the vehicle Officer Rand saw three older gentlemen, Officer Rand then asked the driver if he had identification and the driver (Gonzales) did not have any. Rand then asked the other individuals in the car and only Alcala had a valid license, after producing his license Alcala told the officer that the car was his brothers. Additional officers were called to assist Rand and after they arrived, Officer Rand asked Alcala for consent to search the car and he said yes. Gonzales even assisted Officer Rand with the search by opening the trunk and glove department, over the course of the search

Throughout the history of American Constitution, almost 5000 amendments have been introduced in the Congress. However only 27 amendments have been ratified by the Congress[1].The first ten amendments to the Constitution of the U.S. were passed and ratified in December 1791 by the Congress. The document was written and codified by the Founding Father, James Madison. The second part of amendments was adopted separately. It was a historical moment since after such resolutions the lives of American citizens have changed incredibly. Their liberties were significantly extended. They became independent in expressing their opinions, getting the protection of their rights and freedom. Contemporary American society cannot even imagine that many years

On 10-03-2015 at 2018 hours I responded to 599 Pine (Casey 's) in reference to counterfeit bills.

Facts: On the morning of August 7th, 1999 at 3:16 a.m., a Baltimore Police Officer conducted a stop on a passenger car for speeding. As the officer approached the car he noticed it was occupied by three males one of which was the respondent, Joseph Jermaine Pringle located in the front passenger seat. As the driver retrieved the vehicle’s proof of registration for the glove compartment located in front of Pringle, the officer noticed what appeared to be a large amount of currency rolled up in the glove compartment in plain view. After obtaining the driver’s license and registration, the police officer went back to his patrol car and conducted a check for warrants and prior traffic violations.

According to (PACE Code, 1984), S.1 ss (1.1) states that ‘power to stop and search must be used fairly, responsibly with respect for people being searched and without discrimination.’ Therefore, referring to the facts of the case: ‘PC Williams’ thinks he recognises the youth as Patrick Jones based on the youth’s black scruffy looking and wearing a baseball cap. Added to that, his suspicion was based on the number of times that he has arrested Patrick Jones before for theft and burglary offences.’ Hence, applying S.1 ss (1.1) of the PACE Code, it will be difficult to support that PC Williams have the power under S.1 of PACE Code to carry a search since the

The Stop-and-Frisk program has been a debatable topic for many years. In some regions of the United States, it is also known as Terry Stops. This program is based on the decision of the US Supreme Court in the case of Terry v. Ohio. The program has led to many disagreements and protests throughout the states that use it. Although some say this program reduces the number of crimes and takes illegal guns off the streets, many people are against stop and frisk because it promotes racial profiling, police brutality, and violates the Fourth Amendment. New York has already put an end to stop and search, and hopefully, after reading this essay, it will encourage you to look more into it and put a stop to it in your city.

Vehicle searches are relatively new considering the rest of the laws that have been around since the beginning. There are a lot of rules that come into play to have a justifiable vehicle search. Each state also has their own personal laws in regards to vehicle searches as well. It is a tricky law, just like many others when it comes to what is considered a lawful search.

I do believe in the private search document. With the Rowley case, I do believe it should apply. Since the father gave permission to come into the house and handed the officer the items willingly, I do believe that it was a legal search. Rowley had given his parents full permission to watch his belongings which meant that since the items were in the truck in the possession of the parents then it would have been a legal search. Also with his father willingly let the officer in and handed the items over to the officer wilingly then there was no need for a search