DOCSLIB.ORG

Search and Seizure Case Book

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Search and Seizure Case Book Department of CRIMINAL JUSTICE TRAINING SEARCH & SEIZURE CASEBOOK Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Sec. 10 Security from search and seizure – Conditions of issuance of warrant The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable search and seizure; and no warrant shall issue to search any place, or seize any person or thing, without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. Advisory Warning: The Kentucky Search & Seizure Case Briefs is designed as a study and reference tool for officers in training classes. Although care has been taken to make the case briefs included as accurate as possible, official copies of cases should be consulted when possible before taking any actions that may have legal consequences. The issues and holdings that appear in each brief are only the opinions of the compilers of the Case Briefs. They are only meant to be used for guidance in statutory and case interpretation, are not offered as legal opinions, and should not be relied upon or cited as legal authority for any actions. Always consult legal counsel when in doubt about the meaning of a statute or court decision. i ii Search and Seizure Table of Cases (by Plaintiff) Adams v. Williams 120 Colorado v. Bertine 167 Aguilar v. Texas 101 Coolidge v. New Hampshire 41 Alabama v. White 130 Cooper v. California 166 Arizona v. Gant 142 Cupp v. Murphy 70 Arizona v. Hicks 79 Davis v. Mississippi 33 Arizona v. Johnson 123 Delaware v. Prouse 152 Arkansas v. Sanders 159 Devenpeck v. Alford 27 Bond v. U.S. 39 Dow Chemical Co. v. U.S. 48 Brendlin v. California 140 Draper v. U.S. 89 Brower v. County of Inyo 34 Dunaway v. New York 34 Brown v. Texas 125 Fernandez v. California 68 Brown v. U.S. 75 Flippo v. West Virginia 147 Bumper v. North Carolina 64 Florida v. Board of Cady v. Dombrowski 148 Chosen Freeholders 171 California v. Acevedo 161 Florida v. Bostick 35 California v. Carney 162 Florida v. Harris 53 California v. Ciraolo 47 Florida v. Jardines 55 California v. Greenwood 41 Florida v. Jimeno 63 California v. Hodari D. 35 Florida v. J.L. 131 Cardwell v. Lewis 157 Florida v. Riley 49 Carroll v. U.S. 155 Florida v. Royer 60 Chambers v. Maroney 156 Florida v. Wells 168 Chapman v. U.S. 57 Franks v. Delaware 102 Chimel v. California 136 Georgia v. Randolph 66 City of Indianpolis v. Groh v. Ramirez 109 Edmond 163 Gustafson v. Florida 135 iii Hayes v. Florida 37 Michigan v. Chesternut 38 Henry v. U.S. 24 Michigan v. Long 123 Herring v. U.S. 32 Michigan v. Summers 114 Hester v. U.S. 49 Michigan Dept. of State Horton v. California 45 Police v. Sitz 163 Hudson v. Michigan 108 Mincey v. Arizona 146 Illinois v. Caballes 52 Minnesota v. Carter 82 Illinois v. Gates 104 Minnesota v. Dickerson 46 Illinois v. Lafayette 143 Minnesota v. Olson 80 Illinois v. Lidster 164 Muehler v. Mena 98 Illinois v. McArthur 113 Navarette v. California 152 Illinois v. Rodriguez 62 New Jersey v. T.L.O. 168 Illinois v. Wardlow 128 New York v. Belton 137 Johnson v. U.S. 46 Nix v. Williams 90 Jones v. U.S. 72 O’Connor v. Ortega 84 Katz v. U.S. 73 Ohio v. Robinette 61 Knowles v. Iowa 144 Oliver v. U.S. 50 Kyllo v. U.S. 81 Payton v. New York 30 Los Angeles v. Rettele 111 Pennsylvania v. Mimms 165 McDonald v. U.S. 57 Peters v. New York 119 Mancusi v. DeForte 75 Rakas v. Illinois 76 Mapp v. Ohio 90 Rawlings v. Kentucky 78 Marron v. U.S. 131 Reid v. Georgia 122 Maryland v. Buie 145 Richards v. Wisconsin 113 Maryland v. Dyson 158 Riley v. California 85 Maryland v. Pringle 97 Rugendorf v. U.S. 102 Maryland v. Wilson 166 Ryburn v. Huff 134 Massachusetts v. Safford Unified School District v. Sheppard 115 Redding 169 iv Schmerber v. California 69 U.S. v. Knights 83 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte 61 U.S. v. Knotts 78 Sedillo v. U.S. 45 U.S. v. Leon 93 Segura v. U.S. 92 U.S. v. Matlock 62 Sibron v. New York 119 U.S. v. Mendenhall 64 Smith v. Maryland 74 U.S. v. Murray 94 South Dakota v. Opperman 167 U.S. v. Place 36 Steagald v. U.S. 31 U.S. v. Rabinowitz 132 Stoner v. California 58 U.S. v. Robinson 137 Taylor v. U.S. 100 U.S. v. Ross 160 Terry v. Ohio 118 U.S. v. Salvucci 77 Texas v. Brown 43 U.S. v. Santana 51 Thompson v. Louisiana 146 U.S. v. Sharpe 127 Thornton v. U.S. 139 U.S. v. Watson 59 Ulster County Court v. Allen 96 U.S. v. Wurie 85 U.S. v. Arvizu 129 Virginia v. Moore 29 U.S. v. Banks 107 Warden of Maryland U.S. v. Biswell 145 Penitentiary v. Hayden 149 U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce 151 Washington v. Chrisman 24 U.S. v. Carter 92 Welsh v. Wisconsin 26 U.S. v. Chadwick 158 Whiteley v. Warden, Wyoming U.S. v. Dunn 50 State Penitentiary 100 U.S. v. Drayton 65 Whren v. U.S. 155 U.S. v. Grubbs 116 Wilson v. Arkansas 106 U.S. v. Hensley 125 Winston v. Lee 70 U.S. v. Jacobsen 105 Wyoming v. Houghton 138 U.S. v. Jeffers 133 Ybarra v. Illinois 121 U.S. v. Johns 161 Zurcher v. The Stanford Daily 114 v TOPICAL INDEX Search and Seizure – Summary 1 Arrest Warrantless 24 Warrants 30 Exclusionary Rule 32 Definitions Seizure 33 Search 38 Situations that Lack Fourth Amendment Protectio9 Abandoned Property 41 Plain View 41 Flyovers 47 Open Fields 49 Public Areas 51 Dog Sniff 52 Consent 57 Body Evidence 69 Seizure – Basic Concepts Reasonable Expectation of Privacy/Standing 72 Probable Cause 89 Exclusionary Rule 90 Constructive Possession 96 vi Miscellaneous Search Issues 98 Search Warrants General 100 Search Warrant Affidavit 100 Knock and Announce 106 Search Warrant Form 109 Search Warrant Service 111 “No-Knock” Warrants 113 Miscellaneous Issues 113 Anticipatory Warrants 116 Warrantless Reasonable Suspicion – Terry 118 Anonymous Tips 130 Search Incident to Arrest 131 Booking Search 143 Search Incident to Citation 144 Closely Regulated Businesses 145 Sweep Searches 145 Crime Scene Search 146 Community Caretaker 148 Hot/Fresh Pursuits 149 vii Vehicles Vehicle Stops 151 Pretext Stops 155 Vehicle Exception – Carroll 155 Recreational Vehicle / Motor Homes 162 Roadblocks 163 Miscellaneous Vehicle Issues 165 Inventory 166 School Searches 168 Strip Searches 171 viii SEARCH AND SEIZURE I. CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS A. U.S. Constitution--Fourth Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. B. Kentucky Constitution--Section 10 The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable search and seizure; and no warrant shall issue to search any place, or seize any person or thing, without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. C. Interpretation Although the wording differs slightly, the Kentucky Supreme Court interprets Section 10 above of the Kentucky Constitution as having the same meaning as the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Note: Neither Constitution prohibits all searches and seizures--only unreasonable ones. A search conducted under a legal search warrant is both reasonable and legal. Under certain exigent or emergency circumstances, searches and seizures conducted without a warrant are also reasonable and legal. II. WHAT IS A SEARCH? An officer who examines another person's premises, person, or property for the purpose of discovering contraband (such as stolen property) or other evidence for use in a criminal prosecution has conducted a “search”. A search involves prying into hidden places1 in order to discover something concealed. III. WHAT IS A "SEIZURE"? An officer who takes into custody a person (e.g., arrests that person) or property (e.g., removes a concealed deadly weapon from a suspect) seizes that person or property. The seizure may be temporary or permanent – the nature of the seizure will determine what circumstances must exist to authorize the seizure. 1 Nichols v. Com., Ky., 408 S.W.2d 189 (1966). 1 IV. SEARCH SITUATIONS NOT PROTECTED BY FOURTH AMENDMENT A. ABANDONED PROPERTY A person may lose an expectation of privacy either: 1. by discarding the property in a place where others would have access to it2 or 2. by disclaiming ownership of the object3 Such situations would include when a person discards their trash, in the area where trash is commonly picked up, or when they abandon an item of property (such as a purse) where others would have ready access to the item. It also includes when ownership of an item is denied by a person under suspicion, although it is found in close proximity to their location. (However, they may still be found legally responsible for the item, under the doctrine of constructive possession.) B.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures Under the Plain View Doctrine Elsie Romero
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 78 Article 3 Issue 4 Winter Winter 1988 Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures under the Plain View Doctrine Elsie Romero Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Elsie Romero, Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures under the Plain View Doctrine, 78 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 763 (1987-1988) This Supreme Court Review is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/88/7804-763 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAw & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 78, No. 4 Copyright @ 1988 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. FOURTH AMENDMENT-REQUIRING PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCHES AND SEIZURES UNDER THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE Arizona v. Hicks, 107 S. Ct. 1149 (1987). I. INTRODUCTION The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution pro- tects individuals against arbitrary and unreasonable searches and seizures. 1 Fourth amendment protection has repeatedly been found to include a general requirement of a warrant based on probable cause for any search or seizure by a law enforcement agent.2 How- ever, there exist a limited number of "specifically established and
    [Show full text]
  • 19-292 Torres V. Madrid (03/25/2021)
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus TORRES v. MADRID ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 19–292. Argued October 14, 2020—Decided March 25, 2021 Respondents Janice Madrid and Richard Williamson, officers with the New Mexico State Police, arrived at an Albuquerque apartment com- plex to execute an arrest warrant and approached petitioner Roxanne Torres, then standing near a Toyota FJ Cruiser. The officers at- tempted to speak with her as she got into the driver’s seat. Believing the officers to be carjackers, Torres hit the gas to escape. The officers fired their service pistols 13 times to stop Torres, striking her twice. Torres managed to escape and drove to a hospital 75 miles away, only to be airlifted back to a hospital in Albuquerque, where the police ar- rested her the next day. Torres later sought damages from the officers under 42 U. S. C. §1983. She claimed that the officers used excessive force against her and that the shooting constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the officers, the Tenth Circuit held that “a suspect’s continued flight after being shot by police negates a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim.” 769 Fed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fiction of Gothic Egypt and British Imperial Paranoia: the Curse of the Suez Canal
    The Fiction of Gothic Egypt and British Imperial Paranoia: The Curse of the Suez Canal AILISE BULFIN Trinity College, Dublin “Ah, my nineteenth-century friend, your father stole me from the land of my birth, and from the resting place the gods decreed for me; but beware, for retribution is pursuing you, and is even now close upon your heels.” —Guy Boothby, Pharos the Egyptian, 1899 What of this piercing of the sands? What of this union of the seas?… What good or ill from LESSEPS’ cut Eastward and Westward shall proceed? —“Latest—From the Sphinx,” Punch, 57 (27 November 1869), 210 IN 1859 FERDINAND DE LESSEPS began his great endeavour to sunder the isthmus of Suez and connect the Mediterranean with the Red Sea, the Occident with the Orient, simultaneously altering the ge- ography of the earth and irrevocably upsetting the precarious global balance of power. Ten years later the eyes of the world were upon Egypt as the Suez Canal was inaugurated amidst extravagant Franco-Egyp- tian celebrations in which a glittering cast of international dignitar- ies participated. That the opening of the canal would be momentous was acknowledged at the time, though the nature of its impact was a matter for speculation, as the question posed above by Punch implies. While its codevelopers France and Egypt pinned great hopes on the ca- nal, Britain was understandably suspicious of an endeavor that could potentially undermine its global imperial dominance—it would bring India nearer, but also make it more vulnerable to rival powers. The inauguration celebrations
    [Show full text]
  • Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure Dallin H
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. Reprinted for private circulation from THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW Vol. 37, No.4, Summer 1970 Copyright 1970 by the University of Chicago l'RINTED IN U .soA. Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure Dallin H. OakS;- The exclusionary rule makes evidence inadmissible in court if law enforcement officers obtained it by means forbidden by the Constitu­ tion, by statute or by court rules. The United States Supreme Court currently enforces an exclusionary rule in state and federal criminal, proceedings as to four major types of violations: searches and seizures that violate the fourth amendment, confessions obtained in violation of the fifth and' sixth amendments, identification testimony obtained in violation of these amendments, and evidence obtained by methods so shocking that its use would violate the due process clause.1 The ex­ clusionary rule is the Supreme Court's sole technique for enforcing t Professor of Law, The University of Chicago; Executive Director-Designate, The American Bar Foundation. This study was financed by a three-month grant from the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the United States Department of Justice. The fact that the National Institute fur­ nished financial support to this study does not necessarily indicate the concurrence of the Institute in the statements or conclusions in this article_ Many individuals assisted the author in this study. Colleagues Hans Zeisel and Franklin Zimring gave valuable guidance on analysis, methodology and presentation. Colleagues Walter J.
    [Show full text]
  • Sphinx Sphinx
    SPHINX SPHINX History of a Monument CHRISTIANE ZIVIE-COCHE translated from the French by DAVID LORTON Cornell University Press Ithaca & London Original French edition, Sphinx! Le Pen la Terreur: Histoire d'une Statue, copyright © 1997 by Editions Noesis, Paris. All Rights Reserved. English translation copyright © 2002 by Cornell University All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts thereof, must not be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Cornell University Press, Sage House, 512 East State Street, Ithaca, New York 14850. First published 2002 by Cornell University Press Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Zivie-Coche, Christiane. Sphinx : history of a moument / Christiane Zivie-Coche ; translated from the French By David Lorton. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8014-3962-0 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Great Sphinx (Egypt)—History. I.Tide. DT62.S7 Z58 2002 932—dc2i 2002005494 Cornell University Press strives to use environmentally responsible suppliers and materials to the fullest extent possible in the publishing of its books. Such materi­ als include vegetable-based, low-VOC inks and acid-free papers that are recycled, totally chlorine-free, or partly composed of nonwood fibers. For further informa­ tion, visit our website at www.cornellpress.cornell.edu. Cloth printing 10 987654321 TO YOU PIEDRA en la piedra, el hombre, donde estuvo? —Canto general, Pablo Neruda Contents Acknowledgments ix Translator's Note xi Chronology xiii Introduction I 1. Sphinx—Sphinxes 4 The Hybrid Nature of the Sphinx The Word Sphinx 2.
    [Show full text]
  • 357 Fourth Amendment
    Fourth Amendment — Search and Seizure — Automobile Exception — Collins v. Virginia The axiom is familiar: searches conducted without warrants are per se unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment — “subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.”1 The rule has been eroded by its exceptions in most contexts.2 But it has held strong in one: the home.3 Last Term, in Collins v. Virginia,4 the Supreme Court continued the tradition by holding that the warrant requirement’s automobile exception could not justify an officer’s warrantless search of a vehicle parked in the immediate surroundings of a home.5 The Court reversed the contrary decision of the Supreme Court of Virginia and remanded. Limiting its holding to the automobile exception, the Court noted that the intrusion “may have been reasonable on a differ- ent . exception to the warrant requirement.”6 On remand, however, the lower court cannot find the officer’s entry justified on the basis of any rec- ognized warrant exception while remaining faithful to the Collins reasoning. In July 2013, Officer David Rhodes spotted defendant Ryan Collins driving a motorcycle at 100 miles per hour, nearly twice the speed limit on the Virginia road.7 Officer Rhodes tried to stop him, but Collins zipped away at a speed of over 140 miles per hour.8 Just weeks earlier, a motorcyclist had outrun one of Officer Rhodes’s colleagues under sim- ilar circumstances.9 In the interest of safety, that officer had also aban- ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967) (footnote omitted).
    [Show full text]
  • IRS2 Mutations Linked to Invasion in Pleomorphic Invasive Lobular Carcinoma
    IRS2 mutations linked to invasion in pleomorphic invasive lobular carcinoma Sha Zhu, … , Dina Kandil, Leslie M. Shaw JCI Insight. 2018;3(8):e97398. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.97398. Research Article Oncology Pleomorphic invasive lobular carcinoma (PILC) is an aggressive variant of invasive lobular breast cancer that is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Limited molecular data are available to explain the mechanistic basis for PILC behavior. To address this issue, targeted sequencing was performed to identify molecular alterations that define PILC. This sequencing analysis identified genes that distinguish PILC from classic ILC and invasive ductal carcinoma by the incidence of their genomic changes. In particular, insulin receptor substrate 2 (IRS2) is recurrently mutated in PILC, and pathway analysis reveals a role for the insulin receptor (IR)/insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF1R)/IRS2 signaling pathway in PILC. IRS2 mutations identified in PILC enhance invasion, revealing a role for this signaling adaptor in the aggressive nature of PILC. Find the latest version: https://jci.me/97398/pdf RESEARCH ARTICLE IRS2 mutations linked to invasion in pleomorphic invasive lobular carcinoma Sha Zhu,1 B. Marie Ward,2 Jun Yu,1 Asia N. Matthew-Onabanjo,1 Jenny Janusis,1 Chung-Cheng Hsieh,1 Keith Tomaszewicz,3 Lloyd Hutchinson,3 Lihua Julie Zhu,1,4,5 Dina Kandil,3 and Leslie M. Shaw1 1Department of Molecular, Cell and Cancer Biology, 2Department of Surgery, 3Department of Pathology, 4Department of Molecular Medicine, and 5Program in Bioinformatics and Integrative Biology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA. Pleomorphic invasive lobular carcinoma (PILC) is an aggressive variant of invasive lobular breast cancer that is associated with poor clinical outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Alien Invasions, Vulnerable Bodies: Science Fiction and the Biopolitics of Embodiment from H
    1 Alien Invasions, Vulnerable Bodies: Science Fiction and the Biopolitics of Embodiment from H. G. Wells to Octavia Butler By Rosalind Diaz A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Katherine Snyder, Chair Professor Mark Goble Professor Mel Chen Fall 2018 1 Alien Invasions, Vulnerable Bodies: Science Fiction and the Biopolitics of Embodiment from H. G. Wells to Octavia Butler © 2018 Rosalind Diaz 1 Abstract Alien Invasions, Vulnerable Bodies: Science Fiction and the Biopolitics of Embodiment from H. G. Wells to Octavia Butler by Rosalind Diaz Doctor of Philosophy in English University of California, Berkeley Professor Katherine Snyder, Chair This dissertation turns to alien invasion narratives to elucidate the social, ethical and political consequences associated with the modern body as an entity with clearly defined borders. The imperatives of liberalism and neoliberalism constitute the modern body as a white, male, heteronormative body, navigating appropriate relationships to production and consumption. How does the human body emerge as a bounded entity in science and science fiction from the nineteenth century onward? Alien invasion narratives offer a fruitful way to trace this concept and its development over time. These narratives model proper ways of attending to one’s body as well as proper ways of defending oneself—and, by extension, the planet—from alien invasion. The present inquiry focuses on three different alien invasion narratives, beginning with H. G. Wells’s influential The War of the Worlds (1897), before moving to consider a pair of twentieth- century American texts: Philip Kaufman’s film Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) and Octavia Butler’s novel Fledgling (2005).
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching Social Studies Through Film
    Teaching Social Studies Through Film Written, Produced, and Directed by John Burkowski Jr. Xose Manuel Alvarino Social Studies Teacher Social Studies Teacher Miami-Dade County Miami-Dade County Academy for Advanced Academics at Hialeah Gardens Middle School Florida International University 11690 NW 92 Ave 11200 SW 8 St. Hialeah Gardens, FL 33018 VH130 Telephone: 305-817-0017 Miami, FL 33199 E-mail: [email protected] Telephone: 305-348-7043 E-mail: [email protected] For information concerning IMPACT II opportunities, Adapter and Disseminator grants, please contact: The Education Fund 305-892-5099, Ext. 18 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.educationfund.org - 1 - INTRODUCTION Students are entertained and acquire knowledge through images; Internet, television, and films are examples. Though the printed word is essential in learning, educators have been taking notice of the new visual and oratory stimuli and incorporated them into classroom teaching. The purpose of this idea packet is to further introduce teacher colleagues to this methodology and share a compilation of films which may be easily implemented in secondary social studies instruction. Though this project focuses in grades 6-12 social studies we believe that media should be infused into all K-12 subject areas, from language arts, math, and foreign languages, to science, the arts, physical education, and more. In this day and age, students have become accustomed to acquiring knowledge through mediums such as television and movies. Though books and text are essential in learning, teachers should take notice of the new visual stimuli. Films are familiar in the everyday lives of students.
    [Show full text]
  • The Knock-And-Announce Rule and Police Arrests: Evaluating Alternative Deterrents to Exclusion for Rule Violations
    \\jciprod01\productn\S\SAN\48-1\san103.txt unknown Seq: 1 3-JAN-14 14:43 The Knock-and-Announce Rule and Police Arrests: Evaluating Alternative Deterrents to Exclusion for Rule Violations By DR. CHRISTOPHER TOTTEN† & DR. SUTHAM COBKIT(CHEURPRAKOBKIT)‡ * Introduction IN ARRIVING AT THE DETERMINATION that the exclusionary rule no longer applies to knock-and-announce violations,1 the Supreme Court’s rationale in Hudson v. Michigan2 included the idea that factors other than exclusion exist to prevent police misconduct concerning the knock-and-announce rule.3 Particular examples of these alterna- tive factors relied upon by the Court are improved training, educa- tion, and internal discipline of police: † Dr. Christopher Totten is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice (Law) in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at Kennesaw State University. He has a JD and LLM from Georgetown University Law Center and an AB from Princeton University. He is the criminal law commentator for Volumes 46 through 50 of the Criminal Law Bulletin. ‡ Dr. Sutham Cobkit (Cheurprakobkit) is a Professor of Criminal Justice and Director of the Master of Science in Criminal Justice Program in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at Kennesaw State University. He has a PhD in Criminal Justice from Sam Houston State University. * Both authors would like to thank the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at Kennesaw State University for providing a grant that partially funded the study described in this Article. 1. The knock-and-announce rule usually requires police to knock and to give notice to occupants of the officer’s presence and authority prior to entering a residence to make an arrest or conduct a search.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying Spatial Invasion of Pandemics on Metapopulation
    Identifying spatial invasion of pandemics on metapopulation networks via anatomizing arrival history* Jian-Bo Wang, Student Member, IEEE, Lin Wang, Member, IEEE, and Xiang Li, Senior Member, IEEE Abstract—Spatial spread of infectious diseases among pop- During almost the same epoch, the theory of complex ulations via the mobility of humans is highly stochastic and networks has been developed as a valuable tool for modeling heterogeneous. Accurate forecast/mining of the spread process the structure and dynamics of/on complex systems [13]-[16]. is often hard to be achieved by using statistical or mechanical models. Here we propose a new reverse problem, which aims In the study of network epidemiology, networks are often to identify the stochastically spatial spread process itself from used to describe the epidemic spreading from human to observable information regarding the arrival history of infectious human via contacts, where nodes represent persons and edges cases in each subpopulation. We solved the problem by devel- represent interpersonal contacts [17]-[22]. To characterize the oping an efficient optimization algorithm based on dynamical spatial spread between different geo-locations, simple network programming, which comprises three procedures: i, anatomizing the whole spread process among all subpopulations into disjoint models are generalized with metapopulation framework, in componential patches; ii, inferring the most probable invasion which each node represents a population of individuals that pathways underlying each patch via maximum likelihood estima- reside at the same geo-region (e.g. a city), and the edge tion; iii, recovering the whole process by assembling the invasion describes the traffic route that drives the individual mobility pathways in each patch iteratively, without burdens in parameter between populations [18], [19].
    [Show full text]
  • The Uncertain Scope of the Plain View Doctrine
    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 16 Article 4 Issue 2 Winter 1987 1987 The nceU rtain Scope of the Plain View Doctrine Howard E. Wallin University of Baltimore School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Wallin, Howard E. (1987) "The ncU ertain Scope of the Plain View Doctrine," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 16: Iss. 2, Article 4. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol16/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE UNCERTAIN SCOPE OF THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE Howard E. Wallint t In recent years the Supreme Court has expanded the plain view ex­ ception to the warrant requirement by relaxing the prior valid intrusion and the inadvertency requirements. This article examines the resulting confusion in the state courts and identifies areas where judicial clarifica­ tion is needed. I. INTRODUCTION The fourth amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, pa­ pers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ..., shall not be violated." 1 A second clause directs "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."2 The United States Supreme Court has interpreted these two provisions to mean that any search and seizure conducted without a war­ rant is per se unreasonable and that evidence acquired from a warrantless search and seizure is inadmissible at trial.
    [Show full text]