Write a two-page substantive paper analyzing the scenario below. Ple.docx

•Download as DOCX, PDF•

0 likes•2 views

Write a two-page substantive paper analyzing the scenario below. Please use Florida's state law, federal law or military law. Your analysis should include applying the following topics: (search and seizure, search warrants, execution of warrants, exclusionary rule, Miranda rights, and the right against self incrimination). Identify the issues and analyze. Do not include the entire fact pattern, and do not include fluff. I am looking for two pages of substance. Make sure all citations are in APA or Bluebook format. Please see the attached grading rubric below. This grading rubric will be used to grade this assignment. Leila is a police officer. She is out of uniform and knocked on Dan's front door of his house and asked is should could enter to enforce a warrant she had. The warrant was a search warrant issued by a magistrate at the Lawrence District Court. His name is Mark McCale, a retired police officer for the state police department in Lawrence. The warrant indicated that "the first floor of Dan's house will be searched for a gun used in connection with a robbery and some jewelry, which was stolen." While looking in Dan's house, Officer Leila smelled what she thought to be gun powder emanating from the second floor. Officer Leila immediately walked upstairs and found a gun at the tops of the stairs. She went to confiscate the gun and while doing so noticed a note attached to the gun with an address on it. Later that afternoon police officers went to the address of the house listed on the note of the gun. A bunch of jewelry was found at this address and collected by the police officers. The address was a known address for stolen jewelry to be pawned. While at Dan's house, Dan told Officer Leila that, "I do not know what you are here for, because I did not rob Grubb's jewelry store." Officer Leila asked Dan to go to the police station and Dan agreed. As they walked into the police station, Magistrate McCale yelled, "is that the person who robbed Grubb's jewelry store?!" Dan replied, "I told Officer Leila already, I did not rob Grubb's jewelry store." .

know what you are here for, because I did not rob Grubb's
jewelry store." Officer Leila asked Dan to go to the police
station and Dan agreed. As they walked into the police station,
Magistrate McCale yelled, "is that the person who robbed
Grubb's jewelry store?!" Dan replied, "I told Officer Leila
already, I did not rob Grubb's jewelry store."

Write a 2 page paper analyzing the fact pattern scenario below. Please use your own state law. Your analysis should include application of the topics covered during the past 7 weeks. For example, search and seizure, search warrant, execution of warrant, exclusionary rule, Miranda rights, and the right against self incrimination. Make sure all citations are in APA or Blue book format. Please see the attached grading rubric below. This grading rubric will be used to grade this assignment. Leila is a police officer. She is out of uniform and knocked on Dan's front door of his house and asked is should could enter to enforce a warrant she had. The warrant was a search warrant issued by a magistrate at the Lawrence District Court. His name is Mark McCale, a retired police officer for the state police department in Lawrence. The warrant indicated that "the first floor of Dan's house will be searched for a gun used in connection with a robbery and some jewelry, which was stolen." While looking in Dan's house, Officer Leila smelled what she thought to be gun powder emanating from the second floor. Officer Leila immediately walked upstairs and found a gun at the tops of the stairs. She went to confiscate the gun and while doing so noticed a note attached to the gun with an address on it. Later that afternoon police officers went to the address of the house listed on the note of the gun. A bunch of jewelry was found at this address and collected by the police officers. The address was a known address for stolen jewelry to be pawned. While at Dan's house, Dan told Officer Leila that, "I do not know what you are here for, because I did not rob the Terri Grubb's jewelry store." Officer Leila asked Dan to go to the police station and Dan agreed. As they walked into the police station, Magistrate McCale yelled, "is that the person who robbed Terri Grubb's jewelry store?!" Dan replied, "I told Officer Leila already, I did not rob the Terri Grubb's jewelry store." .

Write a 2 page paper analyzing the fact pattern scenario below. Plea.docx

herbertwilson5999

Write a 2 page paper analyzing the fact pattern scenario below. Please use your own state law. Your analysis should include application of the topics covered during the past 7 weeks. For example, search and seizure, search warrant, execution of warrant, exclusionary rule, Miranda rights, and the right against self incrimination. Make sure all citations are in APA or Blue book format. Please see the attached grading rubric below. This grading rubric will be used to grade this assignment. Leila is a police officer. She is out of uniform and knocked on Dan's front door of his house and asked if she could enter to enforce a warrant she had. The warrant was a search warrant issued by a magistrate at the Lawrence District Court. His name is Mark McCale, a retired police officer for the state police department in Lawrence. The warrant indicated that "the first floor of Dan's house will be searched for a gun used in connection with a robbery and some jewelry, which was stolen." While looking in Dan's house, Officer Leila smelled what she thought to be gun powder emanating from the second floor. Officer Leila immediately walked upstairs and found a gun at the tops of the stairs. She went to confiscate the gun and while doing so noticed a note attached to the gun with an address on it. Later that afternoon police officers went to the address of the house listed on the note of the gun. Jewelry was found at this address and collected by the police officers. The address was a known address for stolen jewelry to be pawned. While at Dan's house, Dan told Officer Leila that, "I do not know what you are here for, because I did not rob Terri Grubb's jewelry store." Officer Leila asked Dan to go to the police station and Dan agreed. As they walked into the police station, Magistrate McCale yelled, "is that the person who robbed Terri Grubb's jewelry store?!" Dan replied, "I told Officer Leila already, I did not rob Terri Grubb's jewelry store." Supporting Materials Week 8 Assignment Grading Rubric.docx (14 KB) .

Criminal legal processDUE May 31, 2020 1159 PMGrade Detail.docx

willcoxjanay

Criminal legal process DUE: May 31, 2020 11:59 PM Grade Details Grade N/A Gradebook Comments None Assignment Details Open Date Apr 22, 2020 11:59 PM Graded? Yes Points Possible 100.0 Resubmissions Allowed? Yes Remaining Submissions 2 Attachments checked for originality? Yes Assignment Instructions Write a 2 page paper analyzing the fact pattern scenario below. Please use your own state law. Your analysis should include application of the topics covered during the past 7 weeks. For example, search and seizure, search warrant, execution of warrant, exclusionary rule, Miranda rights, and the right against self incrimination. Make sure all citations are in APA or Blue book format. Please see the attached grading rubric below. This grading rubric will be used to grade this assignment. Leila is a police officer. She is out of uniform and knocked on Dan's front door of his house and asked is should could enter to enforce a warrant she had. The warrant was a search warrant issued by a magistrate at the Lawrence District Court. His name is Mark McCale, a retired police officer for the state police department in Lawrence. The warrant indicated that "the first floor of Dan's house will be searched for a gun used in connection with a robbery and some jewelry, which was stolen." While looking in Dan's house, Officer Leila smelled what she thought to be gun powder emanating from the second floor. Officer Leila immediately walked upstairs and found a gun at the tops of the stairs. She went to confiscate the gun and while doing so noticed a note attached to the gun with an address on it. Later that afternoon police officers went to the address of the house listed on the note of the gun. A bunch of jewelry was found at this address and collected by the police officers. The address was a known address for stolen jewelry to be pawned. While at Dan's house, Dan told Officer Leila that, "I do not know what you are here for, because I did not rob the Terri Grubb's jewelry store." Officer Leila asked Dan to go to the police station and Dan agreed. As they walked into the police station, Magistrate McCale yelled, "is that the person who robbed Terri Grubb's jewelry store?!" Dan replied, "I told Officer Leila already, I did not rob the Terri Grubb's jewelry store." .

Read the following set of facts and identify all the instances w.docx

fterry1

Read the following set of facts and identify all the instances where the law enforcement officials violated someone’s Fourth Amendment rights against illegal searches and seizures. All of the acts identified should be subject to the exclusionary rule and the evidence obtained from the illegal act should be excluded in court. One beautiful Thursday afternoon, Donnie is hanging out with three his friends in Houston, Texas. Donnie’s friends get the idea to rob a local bank and use the stolen money on video games and drugs. Donnie helps complete details for the bank robbery and the four young men set off to the nearest bank. Donnie and his friends carry out the robbery by storming the bank, pointing guns at bank patrons and staff and threatening to kill anyone who does not cooperate. Unbeknownst to Donnie and his friends, one of the bank employees set off a silent alarm just before Donnie and this co-conspirators leave the bank with cash and personal items of the people inside. The police get the tip and are on the move to find Donnie and the other bank robbers. Upon leaving the bank and hopping into their getaway car, Donnie has the idea to have the group split up so the police cannot catch all of them. They all agree that if any of them are caught, they will not snitch on the others. The guys part ways just one mile from the bank they just robbed. Despite all of their efforts, the police are unable to locate the four men and the case turns cold. Owen, police officer #1, believes he sees one of the robbers walking through an apartment complex about three days after the robbery. Owen cleverly follows the young man. Owen briefly loses sight of the suspect when he walks behind one of the apartment buildings. Owen believes the suspect went into an apartment marked 4D. However, thinks he hears the sound of Snoop Lion music playing from apartment 6D, an apartment across the courtyard from 4D. Under the belief that anyone who listens to Snoop Lion is smoking marijuana, Owen kicks down the door to 6D and immediately observes the smell of marijuana. He follows his nose to a back room where he finds marijuana growing in a closet. While he is in the closet he searches between the clothes and find guns with the serial numbers scratched off. Just then, he remembers that the suspect did not come into this apartment, so he got back into his squad car with the illegal items he found and drove back to the police station. The next day, Tom, police officer #2, believes he saw another bank robbery suspect get into a car that was parked on the street and drive away. Tom follows the car and pulls the driver over. When he walks up to the car, he sees that the driver is a woman. Although Tom has been told that he is looking for four men who were involved in the robbery, he asks the woman out of the car to search it. He figured he had already stopped her, he may as well see if she has anything on her. As Tom is searching the car, he finds thousands of dollar.

Bill of rights work sheet academic

Fredrick Smith

1. The document discusses four Supreme Court cases related to searches and seizures by police: Terry v. Ohio established that police can conduct a stop and frisk if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; United States v. Matlock established that third parties with common authority over property can consent to searches; Harris v. U.S. established that evidence of additional crimes found in plain view during legitimate searches can be seized; and hot pursuit allows police to enter buildings without a warrant to apprehend fleeing suspects. 2. It analyzes scenarios related to each case and asks questions about whether certain searches or seizures were justified based on the circumstances. This includes debates around defining reasonable suspicion, consent from third parties, and the scope of

Black to Blue (Chapter Four - Luke and Carrera)

Mane Omsy

Supreme Court Opinion[WLO 3] [CLOs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]Prior.docx

mabelf3

Supreme Court Opinion [WLO: 3] [CLOs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Prior to beginning your written assignment, read the Excessive Bail (Links to an external site.) article and review all previous weeks’ materials concerning the 4th Amendment, due process, the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, cruel and unusual punishment and capital punishment. In the state of Denial, the Capital City Police have been watching gang activity between two local gangs, the Drips and the Scruds. The Scruds are mad at the Drips because they believe that the Drips have been encroaching on the Scruds’ territory and selling drugs in the Scruds’ neighborhood. Members of the gangs take the first letter of the gang’s affiliation for their “gang name.” For example, the leader of the Drips is assumed the name Dripster, while the leader of the Scrips took on the name Stupido. Officers Do-Right and Justice have been assigned to the case and have been following members of both gangs closely over the past several weeks. Dripster (the leader of the Drips) has been driving around in a Black Chevrolet Blazer that is registered to his girlfriend. Do-Right and Justice have placed a tracking device on the vehicle so that they can follow the gang leader at a safe distance without him noticing them. Using the tracking device, they have followed him to a party being held at a house owned by the girlfriend of a fellow Drip, Dufus. The officers decide to use a new device that they have obtained from the police department called the Bloodhound, which can sniff out certain smells from a distance. Using the Bloodhound, the officers have determined that inside the house are the following substances: marijuana, creatine (which is commonly used to cut cocaine), and lye (which can be used in making methamphetamine). Based upon the information they have obtained from the Bloodhound, they call a magistrate and obtain a search warrant for Dufus’ house. After backup arrives, Officers Do-Right and Justice lead the way to the house, where they break through the front door of the house without first knocking and announcing their presence. Inside the house, they find Dripster sitting at the kitchen table in front of a scale and a white powdery substance, which is later determined to be to be cocaine. They also find Dufus in a back room surrounded by boxes of electronics and a pile of cash that they later determine to be $50,000. With Dufus are two low-level Drips, Dummy and Duncecap, who are armed with automatic assault rifles and loaded handguns. When the officers rush into the room where Dufus, Dummy, and Duncecap are, Duncecap immediately throws up his hands and tells the officers, “I’ll tell you everything I know! Just don’t arrest me!” Dufus turns to his accomplices and says, “If either of you says a word, you are dead meat.” Duncecap immediately stops talking and claims he “doesn’t know anything about anything.” As Do-Right is escorting Dripster to his cruiser after he has arrested him, a.

Film synopsis

06smithh

Write a 2 page paper analyzing the fact pattern scenario below. Please use your own state law. Your analysis should include application of the topics covered during the past 7 weeks. For example, search and seizure, search warrant, execution of warrant, exclusionary rule, Miranda rights, and the right against self incrimination. Make sure all citations are in APA or Blue book format. Please see the attached grading rubric below. This grading rubric will be used to grade this assignment. Leila is a police officer. She is out of uniform and knocked on Dan's front door of his house and asked if she could enter to enforce a warrant she had. The warrant was a search warrant issued by a magistrate at the Lawrence District Court. His name is Mark McCale, a retired police officer for the state police department in Lawrence. The warrant indicated that "the first floor of Dan's house will be searched for a gun used in connection with a robbery and some jewelry, which was stolen." While looking in Dan's house, Officer Leila smelled what she thought to be gun powder emanating from the second floor. Officer Leila immediately walked upstairs and found a gun at the tops of the stairs. She went to confiscate the gun and while doing so noticed a note attached to the gun with an address on it. Later that afternoon police officers went to the address of the house listed on the note of the gun. Jewelry was found at this address and collected by the police officers. The address was a known address for stolen jewelry to be pawned. While at Dan's house, Dan told Officer Leila that, "I do not know what you are here for, because I did not rob Terri Grubb's jewelry store." Officer Leila asked Dan to go to the police station and Dan agreed. As they walked into the police station, Magistrate McCale yelled, "is that the person who robbed Terri Grubb's jewelry store?!" Dan replied, "I told Officer Leila already, I did not rob Terri Grubb's jewelry store." Supporting Materials Week 8 Assignment Grading Rubric.docx (14 KB) .