Brief of the Case Draper V. United States - Report Example

Brief of the Case Draper V. United s Legal History: The petitioner had been charged with the offence of knowingly concealing and transporting narcotic drugs. He was convicted and appealed. Facts The petitioner was found guilty of the offence of knowingly concealing and transporting narcotic drugs. This was in contravention of 35 stat. 614. The Petitioner had been arrested on the 9th of September. This was after a tip off from an informant. Marsh, a narcotic agent saw a person fitting the informant’s description rushing towards the exit. This was after alighting from a Chicago train. The police together with Marsh stopped him and arrested him. They found a syringe in the zipper bag and two envelopes that had heroin. Legal Issues: The issues before the court were as follows. Did the events and facts relating to his arrest amount to probable cause for an arrest? Can hearsay evidence be admissible to prove probable cause? Holding: The petitioner had sought to bar the evidence on the basis that it was secured by way of unlawful search and seizure. The court ruled that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest without a warrant. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. Legal Reasoning: Ingram explains the first issue, which was concerned with whether there was probable cause, based on the information given to Marsh (756). This is as defined under the fourth Amendment. The next issue was whether there were reasonable grounds to arrest as under § 104(a). The petitioner asserted that the information given to Marsh was hearsay. This made it inadmissible as evidence, and also as a basis for probable cause to arrest. The court disagreed and stated that probable cause, as decided in Brinegar v. United States, means the facts that are within the officer’s knowledge are credible enough to lead a reasonable cautious man to believe that an offence has taken place.1 Marsh had acted with caution and had rightfully identified the clothes and walking style of the petitioner as described by the informant. Therefore, he acted with reasonable cause, within the meaning of the law. This means that the seizure was lawful. Brief of the Case Buck V State Court Of Oklahoma Legal History: The Defendant was charged with the offence of arson. He was convicted and jailed for two years. He then appealed. Facts: Mr Reavis on the 22nd august woke up to find his barn on fire. The barn burnt to the ground. He called the sheriff to come with bloodhounds. Then, sheriff went to Mr. Reavis house 5 hours after the fire started. The dogs were set free. The dogs followed a trail leading to a horse. The dogs followed the trail to a house. They found a horse that had been recently ridden as it had sweat. The horse’s hoof showed it was the one that had left the trail. The police found a saddle blanket that was wet with sweat. They followed the trail to the defendant’s house. They waited for him. The dogs, when let loose always went back to the house. He was arrested and charged with arson. Legal Issues: The legal issue before the court was whether evidence of one being trailed by bloodhounds was admissible in court. Holding: The court ruled that the lower court jury was correct in convicting and upheld the verdict. The evidence of the bloodhound was used to corroborate other evidence. Legal Reasoning: The court had to consider whether evidence of trailing of a person by bloodhounds is acceptable in court as proof. The court held that the court in Hodge v. State set the precedent that evidence of tracking by bloodhounds was admissible, but with certain rules.2 The court stated that, where a trained dog like a bloodhound follows a trail and consequently leading one to the defendant’ s premises, then it is deemed to be circumstantial evidence of commission of crime. The rules state that, for the evidence to be admissible, the bloodhound must be trained to track human beings. The bloodhound must do so based on tracks left by a human being. The dog must have done this more than once and the accuracy of its work determined. The evidence of the bloodhounds trailing a person should be used as circumstantial or as corroborative evidence. The evidence cannot be used to convict on its own. The rules for admission of the evidence before the jury are as follows. The judge will first hear the evidence on how the bloodhound is trained. Evidence of its experience and accuracy in the past will then be presented. The court will then hear the evidence pertaining to the case and decide whether the evidence will proceed to the jury. The court will then submit the evidence to the jury. Brief of the Case State v Cowan Legal Issues: The defendant challenged the sufficiency of evidence. He stated that the facts presented as well as a record of the trial did not lead to a sufficient complete chain of custody. The facts of the case Marcarthy, a police officer on January 22nd 2000 was surveying the defendant using binoculars. He noticed the defendant talking to four individuals. He was given some money, which he put in his pocket. He then gave each a bag. Marcarthy approached him. The defendant threw the bags onto the ground. The officer picked nine bags and $190. He inventoried the bags as number 2295494 and the money as 2295495. Legal history: The defendant was incarcerated for dealing with controlled substance, with the intention to deliver. He had been found giving nine plastic bags to some four people. The defendant was jailed and appealed. The appellant stated that there was no enough evidence to show he had the controlled evidence. Holding: The court found that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. The state had not shown that there was sufficient protection of the controlled substance from the scene to the time of analysis by the chemist Legal Reasoning: The court found that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. The State had not shown that there was sufficient protection of the controlled substance from the scene to the time of analysis by the chemist. The court stated that, where the defendant is raising the question of insufficiency of evidence, then evaluation of the court should be based on whether the evidence provides the essential components of the crime. This is as held in Jackson vs. Virginia. 3 The test is whether it is beyond reasonable doubt. Where the defendant raises the sufficiency of evidence, then the waiver rule does not apply. This is as held in People vs. Enoch.4 The state must meet certain criteria, before it is allowed to give real evidence. First, the court has to give a good foundation by use of live evidence that shows whether the item is the real one, and if its condition remained the same. The State must then prove a link between the defendant and the contraband. A sufficient chain of custody has to be shown. This does not mean that every person handling the evidence give their evidence in court. The State must also consider whether the evidence may have been tampered with. The State must finally show that the evidence has not changed in any way. Brief of the Case McKechan v State Legal History: Employees of the company Consolidated had brought a claim for invasion of privacy by their employer. This is because the employer used surveillance videos on the employees at work. The District court allowed the employers suit for dismissal. The employees appealed. The facts of the case Consolidated, a truck Company hid video cameras and listening equipment in the restroom. This was to prevent use of drugs by its employees. The employees discovered the equipment when a mirror fell, exposing the wire They found a similar one in the ladies restrooms. The California penal code had barred the installation of such equipment. The employees brought an action for invasion of privacy. Legal Issues: The legal issue was whether the claim for privacy protected under the penal code of California, which was overruled by § 301 of the Labour Management Relations Act. Holding: The court denied the plaintiffs’ relief. Judge Fisher, however, dissented and stated that the plaintiffs could not enter into an agreement under the CBA that was illegal under the State law (Ingram 789). Legal Reasoning: The California law, under sec 301, override claims under State law that are based on CBA agreements. The plaintiffs making a claim for invasion of privacy must prove that the invasion is unreasonable. This is based on the plaintiffs’ expectation of maintenance of privacy. The standard for privacy under the law can be altered by an agreement. Thus, the state law is not rigid. For the plaintiffs to show emotional distress, they have to show that the surveillance was extreme and excessive. The two employees were fired due to victimisation for taking action. The victimisation was based on their claim for invasion of privacy. The law does not allow an employer to terminate the employees’ services for a policy that breaks a statute law or public policy. The public policy cannot be changed by way of an agreement. Work Cited Ingram, Jefferson. Criminal Evidence. Atlanta: Elsevier, 2011.Print. Read More