Search and Seizure by alicejenny

VIEWS: 17 PAGES: 23

									   Search and Seizure
  By Spencer “King of Four Square” Milliner


Amazingly Interesting Cases
       Explained!
Think of the Children Slide
Mapp v. Ohio
On May 23, 1957 officers tried to gain
entry into Dolree Mapp’s home, under
suspicion that she was harboring a
criminal (Virgil Ogletree) involved in the
recent bombing of Don “The Kid” King’s
residence, as well as possessing illegal
betting equipment.

Mapp refused entry until she could
receive advice from her lawyer.
       Mapp v. Ohio Cont.

After being informed by her lawyer to not allow the
officers to enter without seeing a warrant, Mapp
continued to refuse their entry.

Although this seemed to deter the police, three hours
later, after reinforcements had arrived, they forcibly
entered Mapp’s home. At this time Mapp’s attorney
Greene arrived at the residence, but was barred
entrance by the officers.
    Mapp v. Ohio Cont. Cont.

After Mapp asked for a warrant the officers quickly
waved a paper in front of her, which she then grabbed
(This paper was indeed not a warrant). In response to
this, the officers handcuffed Mapp for belligerency.


Although the officers did find Ogletree, he proved to be
of no use to the bombing case. Not finding betting
equipment, the officers did find a number of
pornographic materials as well as betting slips.
 Mapp v. Ohio Cont. Cont. Cont.

Possession of pornographic materials was illegal in
Ohio, and Mapp was charged with a misdemeanor
gambling charge and a felony obscenity charge.

Later convicted of the obscenity charge and sentenced
to serve up to seven years in the Ohio Reformatory for
Women, Mapp appealed her case three times,
eventually to the Ohio Supreme Court who upheld the
conviction. Strangely enough, the Court admitted that
the evidence was obtained with an “unlawful” search,
but was still admissible.
Mapp v. Ohio Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont.
 The Court cited the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Wolf
 v. People of the State of Colorado in their decision,
 stating that the exclusionary rule, which prevents
 improperly obtained evidence from being introduced
 in federal court, need not be applied in state court
 proceedings.

 Mapp then took her case to the U.S. Supreme Court,
 appealing on First Amendment grounds. Mapp’s
 lawyers argued that Ohio had violated her right to
 freedom of thought and expression by making the
 possession of obscene materials illegal, as well as that
 the search and seizure conducted was unlawful.
Mapp v. Ohio Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont.

  The American Civil Liberties Union also filed a brief
  arguing for a reconsideration of Wolf v. People of the
  State of Colorado.

  The Supreme Court had actually been waiting for a
  chance to overturn Wolf, and it seized the
  opportunity. With a four-vote plurality, the Supreme
  Court overturned Wolf, which meant that the
  exclusionary rule was now applied to states.
       Mapp v. Ohio (Cont.)^6
The Supreme Court, largely ignoring the First
Amendment reasons for the appeal, declared that any
and all evidence obtained by search and seizure in
violation of the Constitution was inadmissible in state
court, and thus ruled in favor of Mapp in a 6-3
decision.

As a result, state police and courts are obliged to
follow the Fourth Amendment prohibition against
illegal search and seizure. Hurray!
            Pochacco Slide
Born on February 29th, Pochacco is an athletic dog
from the Sanrio Universe. He enjoys playing
basketball, soccer, and loves eating carrots!
    Terry v. Ohio (Not Cont.)
While on duty Martin McFadden, a veteran Cleveland
detective, observed two individuals on a street corner.
These men proceeded along an identical route and
stared at the same store window repeatedly, and were
soon joined by a third man.

McFadden suspected the trio of “casing” the store for
a possible burglary, and he approached them. After
identifying himself as a policeman and receiving little
cooperation from the trio, he frisked one of the men,
whose name was Terry.
    Terry v. Ohio (Yes Cont.)
McFadden discovered a gun in Terry’s overcoat, and
after ordering the men to enter a store and face a wall
with their hands raised, he removed Terry’s pistol and
found another revolver on one of the other men.
McFadden had the store owner call the police and
placed the three men under arrest for carrying
concealed weapons.

The trio were convicted for carrying concealed
weapons and sentenced to one to three years in
prison. They appealed this conviction reasoning that
McFadden performed an unlawful search and seizure.
If this was true, the seized pistols should not have
been admitted in court.
Terry v. Ohio Cont. Conch.
 In Terry’s trial the court denied the motion to suppress
 the evidence on the grounds that McFadden had cause
 to suspicion due to the men’s behavior, as well as the
 right to pat them down if he had reasonable cause to
 believe they were armed.

 The court made a distinction between a stop and an
 arrest as well as a frisk and a search for evidence.
 After an appellate court affirmed the verdict and the
 state supreme court dismissed the appeal, the case
 came before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Terry v. Ohio Cont. Conch. Dot.

In an 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court upheld the validity
of the stop and frisk practice. Although McFadden did
not have probable cause for a full search, it was
concluded that a stop and frisk search was appropriate
for the situation.

As a result, the method used within this case (the
Terry frisk) has become a standard by which officers
can measure the lawfulness of searches performed
without a warrant.
   Oh goodness how did this get
              here




I am not good with computers
           Illinois v. Caballes
Illinois State Trooper Daniel Gillette stopped Caballes
on an interstate highway for speeding (71mph in a
65mph zone) and then radioed the police dispatcher to
report the stop. Craig Graham, a member of the
Illinois State Police Drug Interdiction Team, overheard
this transmission. Graham then proceeded to the
scene with his narcotics-detection dog.

When Graham arrived, Gillette was in the process of
writing Caballes a warning. Graham then walked his
dog around Caballes’ car, which then alerted the
officers of Caballes’ trunk. Caballes’!
      Illinois v. Caballes Ultra

Investigating Caballes’ trunk, the officers discovered in
the area of $250,000 worth of marijuana and promptly
arrested Caballes. This entire incident took less than
ten minutes.

Although Caballes moved to suppress the seized
evidence, the judge denied the motion. After being
convicted, Caballes was sentenced to twelve years in
prison and a $256,136 fine. Caballes understandably
decided to appeal.
Illinois v. Caballes Ultra Supreme

 Although the Appellate Court affirmed the verdict,
 Caballes second appeal paid off. In a 4-3 vote, the
 Illinois Supreme Court reversed the decision. The ISC
 concluded that since the canine search was performed
 without any facts or suspicion of drug activity, it
 escalated the routine traffic stop into a drug
 investigation.

 The case was then brought upon the U.S. Supreme
 Court, which in a super secret surprise decision
 reversed the Illinois Supreme Court’s reversal. Golly!
Illinois v. Caballes Self Serve Only

 Justice Stevens explained in his Court opinion that the
 actual invasion of Caballes’ privacy was negligible.
 “A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information
 other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not
 violate the Fourth Amendment.”


 As drug-sniffing dogs are trained only to detect
 contraband materials, items no person is legally
 allowed to possess, they are not considered to cause
 an invasion of privacy.
Illinois v. Caballes High Octane

The legality of drug-detecting canines was not the only
issue the Supreme Court concerned itself with
however.

An otherwise legal seizure can become unlawful if it is
prolonged beyond a reasonable time. If Caballes was
detained longer than necessary by Gillette so as to buy
time for the dog sniffing, the seizure would have
become unconstitutional. As this was not the case,
the Supreme Court reaffirmed Caballes guilt in a 6-2
decision.
    Illinois v. Caballes Omega




As a result, the use of drug sniffing dogs is now
permitted on traffic stops. However, several states
have passed legislation to prevent the willy-nilly use of
these canines.
    Color in Fun - Scooby-Doo




 Scooby-Doo, although excellently trained to sniff and
discover a wide range of foodstuffs, has no capabilities
              or history of drug sniffing.

             According to Shaggy, anyway.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark
          super scary illustration slide

								
To top