The court held that execution of a valid search warrant by police officers was consistent with a reasonable effort to ascertain and identify the place intended to be searched, within the meaning of the fourth amendment, even though the apartment they search was not the one occupied by the person named in the warrant(maryland v. garrison, 1987).

by | Sep 15, 2022 | Other

GET HELP WITH YOUR ESSAY

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional Essay Writing Service is here to help!

DISCOUNT CODE FIRST25

ORDER THIS OR A SIMILAR PAPER NOW

Textbook: Jerold H. Israel, Yale Kamisar, and Wayne La Fave, Criminal Procedure and the Constitution: Leading Supreme Court Cases and Introductory Text (2020)

Directions: Read Discussion Post 1 and Discussion Post 2 and reply to them with 2 paragraphs each . Include reference when responding to the discussion posts. Use APA format for reference and include page numbers when citing information.

Discussion Post 1
The first case that I would like to discuss the Weeks vs the United States, this case involved Fremont Weeks who was suspected of transporting lottery ticket by mail. Weeks was arrested while he was at work and the officers searched his home without a warrant and without him being present and seized documents from the home. After that initial search and seizer his house was again searched, and additional documents was seized. Fremont Weeks was later tried and convicted.
Weeks lawyer argued that the search of his home was illegal and that the police violated his fourth amendment rights when they entered his clients home without a warrant and that allowing such evidence obtained from that search would be defeating the purpose of the amendment. The court agreed to exclude the evidence obtained from the search citing that the search was illegal and violated his fourth amendment rights, the court further stated that the fourth amendment covers a person whether they are accused of a crime or not.
The second case is the case of Silverthorne Lumber co VS the United States, the case involved the lumber company run by Friedrick W. Silverthorne and his father who while they were detained federal agents went to their office and seized documents which the district attorney refused to return to Silverthorne Lumber.
The layer argued that Silverthorne fourth amendment rights was violated and that the evidence seized (copies of company’s books) cannot be used in court because they were obtained from an illegal search. The court ruled that the evidence was illegally obtained therefore they were inadmissible.

Discussion Post2
What were the facts behind the illegal search, seizure or arrest?
The police had a warrant to search the person of Lawrence Webb. At the time that the warrant was obtained, the police were not aware that the third floor was divided into two apartments. While searching the apartment the police found contrabands including heroin ,cash, and drug paraphernalia. They then realized that the third floor was divided into two and that the contrabands found belong to Garrison. Garrison was the owner of the second apartment.  Based on Maryland’s Controlled Substance Act, the substance found was the basis for Garrison to be convicted(Maryland v. Garrison, 1987). This information can be found on page 159.
 What constitutional amendment was violated? 
The violation of the Fourth Amendment was in question. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides 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(Kim,2017).”
 
 Did the Court agree to the exclusion of the evidence obtained from the illegal search?  What was the Court’s rationale?  
No. The Court held that execution of a valid search warrant by police officers was consistent with a reasonable effort to ascertain and identify the place intended to be searched, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, even though the apartment they search was not the one occupied by the person named in the warrant(Maryland v. Garrison, 1987). This information can be found on page 159-165.
 
Richards V. Wisconsin
 What were the facts behind the illegal search, seizure or arrest?  
The case focused on the need for police officers entering a dwelling must knock and announce themselves. In Richard’s case, the police knocked but were disguised as maintenance. The police reasoning was for safety and risk that evidence would be destroyed(Richards v. Wisconsin,1997). This information can be found on page 167.
 
What constitutional amendment was violated?
The violation of the Fourth Amendment was in question. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides 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(Kim,2017).”
 
 Did the Court agree to the exclusion of the evidence obtained from the illegal search?  What was the Court’s rationale? 
The court withheld the evidence found. The judge ruled that it was reasonable for the officers executing the warrant to believe that Richards knew after opening the door the first time. After Richard knew it was police present it was reasonable to force entry due to possible disposal of drugs(Richards v. Wisconsin,1997).This information can be found on page 169.
 
 
2) Why do innocent people confess to crimes they did not commit?  You must cite to at least 3 reasons, with specific cites from the cases.  
1.Ashcraft v. Tennessee : coerced confession – continuous cross examination for thirty-six hours without rest or sleep(Israel et al, 2020). pg. 408
2. Spano v. New York : refused right to counsel(Israel et al, 2020). Pg. 412 
                      Had his best friend falsify information to get a confession  pg. 413
3.Crooker v. California : denied right to contact lawyer(Israel et al, 2020). pg.415

DISCOUNT CODE FIRST25

ORDER THIS OR A SIMILAR PAPER NOW

Ready to get started?