Criminal Evidence 9 - Essay Example

Criminal Evidence 9 al affiliation Case scenario 1. Do you agree with the initial trial court or the United States Supreme Court? There are various exceptions to the search for warrant. When a situation falls under an exception items, the situation may be searched without a warrant. The Supreme Court perhaps reversed the conviction on the basis that the search was illegal. In the past, the Supreme Court passed a ruling that; locked luggage is excluded from search. If a patrol officer deems that the suitcase contains some illegal drugs, he needs to obtain a warranty for search before going on with the search.

Therefore, the description given cannot amount to reasonable suspicion to guarantee a search warrant. The search and seizure laws are prescribed under the Reasonable Expectation of privacy. The right of the passenger was violated, and anything found cannot be used as evidence against the passenger (Creamer, 1980). In essence, I absolutely agree with the Supreme Court. Case scenario 2 2. Did the consent to search the car authorize opening the brown paper bag? Explain. Should the evidence be permitted for use against the defendant?

Why or why not? According to the ruling held by the Court of Appeals, the search of a locked counsel of the automobile was unreasonable since the driver had allowed the officer to search only the inside of the vehicle. The court based its decision on the test held by the Florida Supreme court in the case between the state verses Wells 539 So. 2D 464, in which the court held that, an individual has two exceptional interests that must be safeguarded (Florida v. wells, 1990). (1) The owners anticipation of privacy as illustrated when he tries to lock or even secure the luggage.(2) The owners attempt to safeguard the physical integrity of the luggage and the content inside the container In this case, it was held that, the locked console in the drivers car was an illustration that the contents were private, and if the officers wanted to access the locked counsel, they would have requested for the key or even use force to open it.

Similarly, in our case scenario, it was impartially rational for the police officers to believe the driver’s consent to search only the inside of the vehicle and access everything inside the case, since they were not limited to search. Therefore, they had the consent to search even the brown paper bag. The evidence found should therefore be used against the defendant because the drugs were found inside the car with the drivers consent (Creamer, 1980). ReferenceCreamer, S. (1980). The Law of Arrest, Search and Seizure. NY: Holt.Florida v.

wells, 495 U.S 1 (1990) 495 U.S. 1 Florida v. wells certiorari to the supreme court of Florida No. 88-1835. Argued December 4, 1989 Decided April 18, 1990