Download file to see previous pages...
The event occurred on November 9, 1989, while exiting an apartment building with a history of cocaine trafficking, Timothy Dickerson, a patron walking in the streets, spotted police officers and turned to walk in the opposite direction. Due to this hastiness, the law officials commanded Dickerson to stop, in suspicious of him running around and eventually got to him. On the intent of suspicion, the officer discovered a lump, which he belied was some sort of a leisure drug. Upon further investigation, that suspicious was true. Dickerson was charged with possession of an illegal substance. However, his lawyers argued that there was no valid cause for the officers to conduct this search. Afterall, Dickerson panicked when he saw officials, something that a natural human being is inclined to do when he sees authority. Dickerson pleaded the trial court not to use the possession of cocaine in the court, but was rejected. This case become a supersession to allow officials to lawfully pat down a suspect since no element of invasion of privacy has been violated.
In his defense to appeal his conviction, Dickerson claimed that the search violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches, as he pleaded it exceeded the limits of a permissible as outlined in Terry vs Ohio. As evident, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that police mat still frisk a patron based on suspicious reasonable search. The search’s purpose is to find weapons, and the officials may seize any items found in any search which is evident.
The court made a very important ruling which became evident in future cases. In essence, the court ruled that a detection of contraband during a lawful patdown is legal, even though it does not require a warrant. Due to this ruling, warrantless seizures became permissible. However, the court also pointed out that the Court also concluded that law officials tackling Dickerson stepped outside the
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
During his arrest, the police neglected to inform him of his right to self incrimination as well as his Sixth Amendment right to have free counsel assigned to represent him during his questioning. Being of little education and with a history of mental instability, Miranda found himself declared by the court as guilty of the crimes he confessed to and facing a 20-39 year prison sentence.
United States v. Wade
Two weeks after his arrest, Wade was placed in a line up with other similar looking men where the two employees who were present during the robbery positively identified Wade as one of the perpetrators.
The witness identification procedure was undertaken by the FBI without considering the need of the accused to have legal counsel present.
United States v. Salerno
Therefore, there was no violation of the 5th amendment nor the Excessive Bail Clause of the 8th Amendment. This case was based upon the arrest and subsequent indictment of La Cosa Nostra boss Anthony Salerno on violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act).
Up to and including the 1991 Gulf War, the regional environment was largely shaped by fears of interstate aggression, either by superpower intervention or by regional states against each other. Fears of interstate aggression certainly remain today, but they are manifesting themselves in new ways.
and stole a hammer from there. He then used the hammer to gain entry to Marquette's Market on the corner of Main Street and First Street, by smashing the lock on the alley entrance of the store. The defendant then collected $910 in a cloth money bag from the store's cash register.
Patrick O. Kennedy, a man from Louisiana, was sentenced to death after being convicted of raping his eight-year-old stepdaughter. The rape was so brutal that “an expert in paediatric forensic medicine testified that the
Army surgeon Dr. John Emerson. He traveled with him from camp to camp and spent a length of time living with his master in certain slave free states such as Illinois and Wisconsin. During this time, the slave owner made money off
Through it, various emerging legal issues became addressed; eventually changing the then prevailing legal landscape. This was in regard to both the admissibility of scientific evidence and expert testimony; as crucial evidence in the determination of a
takes into consideration state search and seizure practices at the time of the Fourth Amendment’s enactment and current state practices.In this regard when interpreting the Fourth Amendment,the court in defining the scope of Federal protection both trusts and mistrusts modern
Minnesota). The state law argued that the Press caused nuisance through defamatory statements; thus, the abolishment of other publications and circulation to the public.
Constitutional question(s) presented by the case: The Court had to decide if the
2 Pages(500 words)Case Study
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Case Study on topic Minnesota v. Dickerson 1993 for FREE!