Term
| Problem 1 Timeline Step 1 |
|
Definition
| Loften possibly enters into the curtilage of Fredy's house |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 timeline step 2 |
|
Definition
| Loften places tracking device on Freddy's Mercedes |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Timeline Step 3 |
|
Definition
| Loften monitors Freddy's movements through tracking device for a month |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Timeline Step 4 |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Timeline Step 5 |
|
Definition
| Loften questions Ricardo about his relationship with freddy. Ricardo tells loften freddy has been picking up shipments of guns from ricardo and storing them at his home. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Timeline Step 6 |
|
Definition
| Loften sneaks into freddy's home and makes sure there are weapons |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Timeline Step 7 |
|
Definition
| Searches dresser, finds pot, no drugs |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Timeline Step 8 |
|
Definition
Applies for a warrant based on four facts
1. Freddy's clothing
2. Freddy's trips to ricardo
3. Inteligence gathered on Ricardo's smuggling of illegal weapons
4. Ricardo's statement regarding freddy |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Timeline Step 9 |
|
Definition
Judge issues warrant authorizing search for
1. Firearms
2. Guns
3. Illegal weapons
4. And ammunition |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Timeline Step 10 |
|
Definition
| Loften searches home, does not find any of the listed evidence. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Timeline Step 11 |
|
Definition
| Recovers dime bag in freddy's dresser drawer |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Timeline Step 12 |
|
Definition
| Freddy is arrested and charged with possession |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Was the Marijuana discovered and seized in violation of the due process clause of the fourth Amendment? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure and presents an assumption that a warrant is required to prevent an unreasonable search and seizure, it should contain probable cause, issued by a neutral and detached magistrate, be particular and supporte by affidavit. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Analysis - Name the Micro-Issues |
|
Definition
Was Loften's entrance to the curtilage of Fredy's home a 4th ammendment violation?
Was the placement of tracking device and subsequent monitoring of Freddy's car an unreasonable search?
Was Loften's entrance into Freddy's home without a warrant in violation of the 4th amendment?
Was there probable cause to apply for the warrant?
Was the second search of the drawer outside the parameters of the warrant and therefore in violation of the 4th amendment? |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Analysis - Was Loften's entrance to the curtilage of Fredy's home a 4th ammendment violation? - Rule |
|
Definition
| A warrant is required to enter into the curtilage of a home, an area considered to be associated with the intimate activities of the home. The Dunn Factors determine whether an area, they are the proximity of the area to the home, any enclosures, the nature and use of the area, and steps taken to protect the area. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Analysis - Was Loften's entrance to the curtilage of Fredy's home a 4th ammendment violation? - Prosecutions Micro Analysis |
|
Definition
| Prosecution would argue that the Dunn Factors have not been satisfied and that the warrant is not necessary because he was only entering into an area outside of the curtilage (open fields.) |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Analysis - Was Loften's entrance to the curtilage of Fredy's home a 4th ammendment violation? - Defense Analysis |
|
Definition
Freddy's driveway is attached to his home the facts are silent as to how far away it is parked. This could be viewed either way but it is possible as it is attached to the home that it is favorably part of the curtilage under proximity
There is a black iron fence support enclosure
no trespassing signs that lend to the area being supports evidence that steps were taken to prevent viewing by the public
The driveway is used as an entrance and exit of the home, which courts have taken disparate views on, some regard driveways as inherently curtilage because of their use in regards to entrance of the home, others find that it cannot be curtilage because public officials must enter onto the home through this driveway. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Analysis - Was Loften's entrance to the curtilage of Fredy's home a 4th ammendment violation? - Conclusion |
|
Definition
| The court may find this was a violation of Freddy's fourth amendment freedom from unreasonable searches, if they consider his driveway to be a part of the curtilage of his home, and should suppress evidence, if not analysis should continue. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Analysis - Was the placement of tracking device and subsequent monitoring of Freddy's car an unreasonable search? - Rule |
|
Definition
| Supreme court held in that the car is a person's effect and that in order to place a GPS device on a vehicle and use it for monitoring the vehicles movements a Police officer is required to have a search warrant. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Analysis - Was the placement of tracking device and subsequent monitoring of Freddy's car an unreasonable search? - Analysis |
|
Definition
| Because officer Loften did not have a search warrant allowing him to place the GPS device and monitor the vehicle this was an unreasonable search. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Analysis - Was the placement of tracking device and subsequent monitoring of Freddy's car an unreasonable search? - Conclusion |
|
Definition
| This was an unreasonable search that gave fruit to the discovery of the marijuana, so the marijuana should be suppressed under the exclusionary rule, if the court disagrees, then analysis should continue. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Analysis - Was Loften's entrance into Freddy's home without a warrant in violation of the 4th amendment? - Rule |
|
Definition
| 4th amendment protects unwarranted search the home and is requried for a search without absent exigent circumstances or other warrant exceptions |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Analysis - Was Loften's entrance into Freddy's home without a warrant in violation of the 4th amendment? - Analysis |
|
Definition
| Loften entered without a warrant and searched the premises, this is inviolation 4th amendment because he did not have a warrant |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Analysis - Was Loften's entrance into Freddy's home without a warrant in violation of the 4th amendment? - Conclusion |
|
Definition
| Fruits of this search should be suppressed because of Loften's search of Freddy's home was unwarranted, |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Analysis - Was there warrant properly issued with sufficient probable cause? - Rule |
|
Definition
Warrant must be issued by an attached magistrate, be specific, be sworn by affidavit and have probable cause. Probable cause is a low standard to reach with no definitive boundaries more likely than not what that the suspect is involved in criminal activities. Probable Cause is measured by the time of the afidavit supporting the evidnece and facts and circumstances within the officers knowledge and of which they have trustworth information were sufficient in warranting a prudent official in proving a crime had been committed.
Probable cause can be based on an informants information if it is credible and reliable based on the totality of the circumstances. |
|
|
Term
Problem 1 Analysis - Was there warrant properly issued with sufficient probable cause? - Analysis
Problem 1 Analysis - Was there warrant properly issued with sufficient probable cause? - Analysis |
|
Definition
| Officer Loften may have had probable cause in support of his application for a warrant because of the information he got from Ricardo, who stated that Freddy was involved in distribution of illegal weapons. Is likely credible because it is against his interests to give up information related to his business, although he has not made prior accurate tips, and does not necessaarily have a reputation of for trtuhfulness, the information is likely reliable because Ricardo claims to have personally observed the information, and can be coroborated by GPS data that shows Freddy regularly visiting Ricardo. |
|
|
Term
Problem 1 Analysis - Was there warrant properly issued with sufficient probable cause? - Analysis
Problem 1 Analysis - Was there warrant properly issued with sufficient probable cause? - Conclusion |
|
Definition
| This may rise to probable cause when considering the surrounding information, the court could likely find in totality of the circumstances, that using the gps data that shows the frequent trips to Ricardo's home and Ricardo implicating Freddy's involvement which would likely not help him, there could be probable cause, otherwise this should be rejected assuming the GPS data is not admissible and the information is limited. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Analysis -Was the second search of the drawer outside the parameters of the warrant and therefore in violation of the 4th amendment? - Rule |
|
Definition
| Fourth Amendment Supra, Under independent source doctrine evidencie initially discovered unlawfully but is later obtained lawfully in a manner independent of the original discovery. Officer may search within the boundaries of the warrant, in this case for firearms guns and illegal, ammunition. Under the plain view doctrine contraband found during a lawful search is not excluded as evidence. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Analysis -Was the second search of the drawer outside the parameters of the warrant and therefore in violation of the 4th amendment? - Analysis |
|
Definition
| In this instance oOfficer Loften has received a warrant from a magistrate assuming the warrant was valid valid, the previous search regardless of its reasonableness does not effect this search, since it was granted properly. It is likely that weapons, and small ammunition could be found in a drawer so it is likely that in this situation the evidence should not be suppressed. Opening the drawer in search of ammunition would lead to a readily apparent marijuana under plainview doctrine. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Analysis -Was the second search of the drawer outside the parameters of the warrant and therefore in violation of the 4th amendment? - Conclusion |
|
Definition
| Assuming arguendo that the warrant is valid, the marijuna should not be suppressed under this search because it was found validly and in plain view. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 1 Major Conclusion |
|
Definition
| Considering that Freddy's fourth amendment interests have likely been violated by the unwarranted placement ofthe gps tracking device, subsequent monitoring and entrances into his home and curtilage the marijuna should likely be suppressed as fruits of an unlawful search. Otherwise the court finding that the warrant was valid with sufficient probable cause. The later searches may have been valid, but should still be suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful search because of the prior unreasonable search. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Timeline Step 1 |
|
Definition
| Issued a search warrant for Home of lisa smith. Location of apartment 1 is listend incorrectly. Issued for only the living room. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Timeline Step 2 |
|
Definition
| Dancy informed judge jones of his mistake |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Timeline Step 3 |
|
Definition
| Jones vacated the warrant and notified police department |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Timeline Step 4 |
|
Definition
| Lewis did not remove the warrant on June 3rd |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Timeline Step 5 |
|
Definition
| That evening officer oswald using the warrant went to 123 main street knocked on the door of 1B on the right believing it was apartment 1A |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Timeline Step 6 |
|
Definition
| Informed Ms. Wislon he had a warrant for the search, she cooporated and allowed him inside. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Timeline Step 7 |
|
Definition
| No evidence of cocaine or illegal activity found in the living room |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Timeline Step 8 |
|
Definition
| Searched Paul Howell found large amount of cocaine in howell's jacket and a thousand dollars. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Timeline Step 9 |
|
Definition
| Howell and Wilson are arrested |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Timeline Step 10 |
|
Definition
| Officerr Owsald Looked around for other people found several kilos of cocaine on the closet floor immediately. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Timeline Step 11 |
|
Definition
| Wilson and howell are charged with trafficking cocaine. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Can the drugs and money found in Mr. Howell's pocket, as well as the killos of cocaine found in Ms. Wilsons closet be supressed as fruit of illegal searches under the fourth amendment? Does Ms. Wilson have standing to contest the Marijuana found in Mr. Howell's pocket? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Fourth Amendment (Supra), Standing: is there a reasonable expectation of privacy or a possessory interest in the items seized, Good faith exception allows for a police officer acting in good faith to execute an invalid warrant, without being penalized under the exclusionary rule. Mention the exclusionary rule. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Analysis - Name the Micro-Issues |
|
Definition
Did Officer Oswald act in good faith when excuting the erroneous warrant in order to commence a search of the apartment or was the search in violation of the 4th amendment?
Did Officer Oswald have probable cause to search Paul Howell?
Does Carla have standing to challenge the search of Paul?
Did officer Oswald have probable cause to arrest Carla Wilson?
Was the seized cocaine from the closet the fruit of an illegal search? |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Analysis - Did Officer Oswald act in good faith when excuting the erroneous warrant in order to commence a search of the apartment or was the search in violation of the 4th amendment? - Rule |
|
Definition
| Good faith exception - Exception to the exclusionary rule, exists when an officer has acted in good faith to execute a warrant that is later revealed to be invalid. The four areas where there is not good faith are: Where the affiant suplies false information, where the magistrate abandons the neutral role, where the affidavit is so lacking in probable cause as to render the belief in existence of probable cause unreasonable, and where the warrant is facially deficient in particularizing the place to be searched or item to be seized. Clerical error is not a violation of the good faith exception. There must be systemic, rather than simple, negligence in order to overcome the presumption of good faith. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Analysis - Did Officer Oswald act in good faith when excuting the erroneous warrant in order to commence a search of the apartment or was the search in violation of the 4th amendment? - Analysis |
|
Definition
| The good faith exception may not apply in this case, because the warrant was for apartment 1A which was actually located on the left side where it was said to be located on the right side. This is may be an error in good faith because the warrant is facially deficient. However the warrant is erroneous it is highly specific and it is possible a court could find that it was not facially defficient because of the simple error. The Warrant itself was also issued by a detached magistrate, apparetly had probabe cause and the affiant did not try to hide the truth, instead he attempted to correct. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Analysis - Did Officer Oswald act in good faith when excuting the erroneous warrant in order to commence a search of the apartment or was the search in violation of the 4th amendment? - Conclusion |
|
Definition
| It is likely that in this case the good faith exception will applly, because of the officers involved and the magistrate that issued the warrant were acting within the paramaters in of the good faith exception and this is merely a clerical error, which is merely simple negligence. Unless a court happens to find t is facially defficient then the search is no good. Either way analysis will continue. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Analysis - Did Officer Oswald have probable cause to search Paul Howell? - Rule |
|
Definition
| a person's mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search that person. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Analysis - Did Officer Oswald have probable cause to search Paul Howell? - Analysis |
|
Definition
| Absent specified probable cause, Oswald’s search of Paul after the search warrant was executed was a violation of Paul’s 4th A rights because there was nothing to give rise to probable cause that Paul had cocaine or money on his person. In U.S. v. Ybarra, the Supreme Court stated that after execution of a warrant, a person’s mere presence does not give rise to probable cause to search absent individualized probable cause specific to the individual. There was no cocaine found in the living room as a result of the execution of the warrant. There are no facts to give rise to an individualized suspicion of Paul just because he was present in the home. However, because of the nature of cocaine trafficking, it could be argued that Paul’s presence on the scene did give rise to probable cause because he was present in an apartment where there was probable cause to get a warrant to search for cocaine. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Analysis - Did Officer Oswald have probable cause to search Paul Howell? - Conclusion |
|
Definition
| It is more likely, though, that since the wrong apartment was searched and Paul was not implicated in any way before the execution of the warrant, that the search of his person is illegal. However, if a court finds that Officer Oswald did have particularized probable cause to search Paul, the next issue........ |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Analysis - Does Carla have standing to challenge the search of Paul? - Rule |
|
Definition
| Rakas v. Illinois - is there a possessory interest in the item seized, is there a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Analysis - Did officer Oswald have probable cause to arrest Carla Wilson? - Rule |
|
Definition
| DiRe - Any inference that everyone on the scene of a crime is a party to it must disappear once the guilty party is singled out. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Analysis - Did officer Oswald have probable cause to arrest Carla Wilson? - Analysis |
|
Definition
| It is unlikely that officer Oswald had probable cause to arrest Carla Wilson, because although the cocaine was located in her home, Paul was singled out as the owner of the cocaine and the money, because it was located within his pockets and not available in a public area. which would cause the inference that she was guilty to disappear. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Analysis - Did officer Oswald have probable cause to arrest Carla Wilson? - Conclusion |
|
Definition
| There was not probable cause to arrest Carla based on the cocaine and money found on Paul, but in case there was....... |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Analysis - Was the seized cocaine from the closet the fruit of an illegal search? - Rule |
|
Definition
| Search incident to arrest - On its face valid, generally confined to the wingspan of the individuals arrested, can be used to make a protective sweep for confederates may be lurking in. Plain view doctrine |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Analysis - Was the seized cocaine from the closet the fruit of an illegal search? - Analysis |
|
Definition
| Assuming arguendo that the search incident to arrest is valid, the the cocaine would be admitted. The officer is allowed to a wingspan search incident to arrest, whichwould not get him into the bedroom the closet, but he is permitted to do a protective sweep to look in any place where confederates may be lying in wait. A confederate may definitely lay in wait in a closet, so the officer is allowed to search in the closet while performing a protective sweep. Because the cocaine is immediately apparent as contraband, the plain view doctrine applies. However, if the arrests of both individual are invalid because of Fourth Amendment violations, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies. The search incident to arrest would be invalid if the arrest of Carla is invalid. therefore, the cocaine would be suppressed in that circumstance. |
|
|
Term
| Problem 2 Major Conclusion |
|
Definition
| Although Officer Oswald acted in Good Faith of the invalid warrant his evidence of cocaine in Howell’s pocket and the cocaine found in wilson’s closet should be invalidated as the fruit of an illegal search because they resulted from a search made of Mr. Howell without probable cause. Understanding that Wilson does not have standing to challenge that search, it still unlawfully resulted in her arrest, which would invalidate the search incident to arrest that resulted in the unlawful discovery of the cocaine. The evidence should be suppressed in both cases. |
|
|
