Federal court order from Nevada, Fourth Amendment issues, detailing illegal detention. Darren Chaker, writes frequently on such issues and was provided the order to help educate people on rights and judicial cases impacting every day life.
Court case, Darren Chaker provides, Stingrey warrant, requires search warrant, involves privacy, constitutional issues in obtaining phone records and data, Fourth Amendment issues are discussed in detail by the court and how the law looks at cutting edge technology.
Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape and kidnapping and interrogated for 2 hours without being informed of his 5th and 6th Amendment rights. When the case went to the Arizona Supreme Court, the police argued Miranda must have known his rights from past arrests. The US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that police must inform suspects of their right to remain silent and right to an attorney during interrogation.
This document provides an overview and analysis of the Miranda Warning and its history and issues. It discusses key Supreme Court cases that established Miranda rights, including Miranda v. Arizona (1966) which required police to inform suspects of their rights to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning. The document examines criticisms of the Miranda Warning including concerns about comprehension, especially for non-native English speakers. It also explores police interrogation techniques and how Miranda aims to prevent coercive practices that could violate a suspect's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
Ex cia officer v do j on covert merlin agentAnonDownload
This document discusses a case involving the disclosure of classified national defense information. It summarizes the lengthy pre-trial proceedings in the case that were caused in part by the defendant refusing a brief continuance and instead forcing an interlocutory appeal. It also questions the credibility of a defense witness, David Manners, who provided an unsworn letter supporting the defendant's claim that his disclosures caused little harm. Manners had previously testified under oath before a grand jury that the defendant was the source for a journalist's book, but later recanted his testimony just before trial. The document argues the trial evidence established harm from the defendant's actions and that Manners' late recantation and unsworn letter should be disreg
The Plain View Doctrine allows officers to seize evidence of a crime without a warrant if 1) the officer is lawfully present where the evidence can be plainly viewed, 2) the evidence is discovered inadvertently, and 3) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the items may be evidence of a crime. The doctrine does not apply if the initial intrusion or presence is improper. Certain areas like open fields outside the curtilage of a home are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of Florida case involving Pablo Ibar who was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences. The document provides background on the facts of the case, including that Ibar and another man were caught on video entering a home and murdering three people. It discusses issues raised in Ibar's appeal and analyzes the admissibility of certain witness identification evidence under Florida statute. The court found that some of the prior witness identifications were improperly admitted as substantive evidence.
This document provides a case analysis of evidence act provisions from the Madras High Court case of Appu Alius Ayyanar Padayachi vs State from 1971. It summarizes the key facts of the case where the appellant Appu was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering his brother and other family members. It discusses the legislative provisions around showing motive, state of mind and privileged communication between spouses. The court confirmed the conviction and death sentence, finding the appellant had a strong motive and the murders were committed by him alone.
Court case, Darren Chaker provides, Stingrey warrant, requires search warrant, involves privacy, constitutional issues in obtaining phone records and data, Fourth Amendment issues are discussed in detail by the court and how the law looks at cutting edge technology.
Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape and kidnapping and interrogated for 2 hours without being informed of his 5th and 6th Amendment rights. When the case went to the Arizona Supreme Court, the police argued Miranda must have known his rights from past arrests. The US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that police must inform suspects of their right to remain silent and right to an attorney during interrogation.
This document provides an overview and analysis of the Miranda Warning and its history and issues. It discusses key Supreme Court cases that established Miranda rights, including Miranda v. Arizona (1966) which required police to inform suspects of their rights to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning. The document examines criticisms of the Miranda Warning including concerns about comprehension, especially for non-native English speakers. It also explores police interrogation techniques and how Miranda aims to prevent coercive practices that could violate a suspect's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
Ex cia officer v do j on covert merlin agentAnonDownload
This document discusses a case involving the disclosure of classified national defense information. It summarizes the lengthy pre-trial proceedings in the case that were caused in part by the defendant refusing a brief continuance and instead forcing an interlocutory appeal. It also questions the credibility of a defense witness, David Manners, who provided an unsworn letter supporting the defendant's claim that his disclosures caused little harm. Manners had previously testified under oath before a grand jury that the defendant was the source for a journalist's book, but later recanted his testimony just before trial. The document argues the trial evidence established harm from the defendant's actions and that Manners' late recantation and unsworn letter should be disreg
The Plain View Doctrine allows officers to seize evidence of a crime without a warrant if 1) the officer is lawfully present where the evidence can be plainly viewed, 2) the evidence is discovered inadvertently, and 3) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the items may be evidence of a crime. The doctrine does not apply if the initial intrusion or presence is improper. Certain areas like open fields outside the curtilage of a home are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of Florida case involving Pablo Ibar who was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences. The document provides background on the facts of the case, including that Ibar and another man were caught on video entering a home and murdering three people. It discusses issues raised in Ibar's appeal and analyzes the admissibility of certain witness identification evidence under Florida statute. The court found that some of the prior witness identifications were improperly admitted as substantive evidence.
This document provides a case analysis of evidence act provisions from the Madras High Court case of Appu Alius Ayyanar Padayachi vs State from 1971. It summarizes the key facts of the case where the appellant Appu was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering his brother and other family members. It discusses the legislative provisions around showing motive, state of mind and privileged communication between spouses. The court confirmed the conviction and death sentence, finding the appellant had a strong motive and the murders were committed by him alone.
1) Marc Curvesco was diagnosed with HIV in 2008 and warned by public health officials to use condoms and inform partners but refused.
2) He had unprotected sex with two partners, Kitty and Holly, without informing them of his HIV status.
3) Marc faces potential criminal charges of assault, aggravated assault, and causing bodily harm for endangering Kitty and Holly through his actions. Both women stated they would not have consented to unprotected sex if they knew of his HIV status.
The accused is appealing his conviction of negligence causing bodily harm and aggravated assault. He engaged in unprotected sex without disclosing his HIV-positive status, which resulted in his partners contracting HIV. The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered. The court found that failing to disclose HIV status prior to unprotected sex does not constitute fraud or vitiate consent under Canadian law.
Protecting Defendants
UAB PSC 381 Bill of Rights
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Bowers v. Hardick
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Usa vs. arhndt judge says police need a warrant to view files on wireless n...Umesh Heendeniya
This document provides background on a case involving the suppression of evidence obtained without a warrant. John Henry Ahrndt was indicted on child pornography charges. His motion to suppress was initially denied but was later granted by the Ninth Circuit which remanded the case. At a second evidentiary hearing, testimony was provided that a neighbor had connected to Ahrndt's unsecured wireless network and viewed file names suggesting child pornography. Police were contacted and viewed one image before losing the connection. Ahrndt now moves again to suppress the evidence against him.
Federal court, excluding police report, Darren Chaker, provides law on keeping a police report away from the jury in a criminal case, which is important since are usually hearsay and unreliable.
This document provides a summary of topics covered at a criminal law conference from 1-4 November 2010 presented by MAJ Mason Weiss. It discusses recent case law developments pertaining to crimes and defenses, evidence, findings and sentencing, self-incrimination, search and seizure, and pleas and pre-trial agreements. Numerous military court cases are summarized across these topics, with highlights including limitations on what can constitute solicitation and larceny offenses, standards for admitting evidence under Military Rules of Evidence, requirements for specifying findings of guilty, and limits on questioning service members for law enforcement purposes without Miranda warnings.
This Supreme Court of Georgia case involves Veasa Bun appealing his convictions of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of a sheriff's deputy. Bun received a sentence of life without parole plus 70 additional years. He argued this sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment as a juvenile. The court affirmed the sentence, finding the evidence supported the convictions and precedent has established that life without parole sentences for juveniles can be constitutional. The court also rejected Bun's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Three sentences:
Aniruddha Sherbow has been charged in the District of Columbia with transmitting threats in interstate commerce for leaving a threatening voicemail for Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and sending an email threatening to decapitate her. He was arrested in California based on these charges and is appearing for an initial appearance in federal court there. The documents provide details of the threatening communications and establish probable cause for the arrest.
We The People, session vii, Rights of the AccusedJim Powers
Alternate title: Cops, Courts and Corrections. We see how the Court has incorporated Bill of Rights protections for the accused as burdens on the states' justice systems.
In 1993, the mutilated bodies of three 8-year-old boys were found in West Memphis, Arkansas. Three teenagers - Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley, and Jason Baldwin - were convicted of the murders based primarily on circumstantial evidence and Misskelley's coerced confession. In 2011, after 17 years in prison, new DNA evidence excluded the three men and implicated new suspects. This case highlights the importance of proper chain of custody and evidence preservation procedures to avoid wrongful convictions and allow for the possibility of exoneration through advances in forensic technology.
Darren Chaker, opinion by federal court on privacy issues, and in federal case. Important issues in privacy and internet are addressed in lawsuit, very useful cases discussed.
Section 7 of the Evidence Act 1950 deals with facts that are the occasion, cause, or effect of facts in issue or relevant facts. It provides that such facts can be considered relevant. The document discusses the scope and application of Section 7 through examples and case law. It analyzes Section 7 under five grounds - as being the occasion of relevant facts, showing the cause, being the effect, providing opportunity, and constituting the state of things. Case law from both Malaysia and other common law countries is used to illustrate how Section 7 has been applied in practice.
Relevancy of evidence under Section 7 of Evidence Act 1950Intan Muhammad
P/S : I am sharing my personal notes of law-related subjects. Some parts of them are explained in a very informal-relaxed way and mix of languages (BM and English). Secondly, as law revolves every day, there will be outdated parts in my notes. Two ways of handling it.. (1) double check with the latest law and keep it to yourself (2) same with No. 1 coupled with your generosity to share with us, the LinkedIn users (hiks ^_^). Till then, have a nice day!
Bryan Coignet analyzes whether the consent to search given by Joel Woods, the co-occupant and leaseholder of the apartment, is valid despite the defendant Sean Beal not being present. Coignet concludes that the search is likely valid because Woods, as a co-occupant, reasonably appeared to have common authority over the living room where the search occurred. Even if Woods did not have actual authority, the officers reasonably believed he did as the leaseholder in the shared living space. Prior cases found parents and an uncle could consent to searches of shared bedrooms.
Matthew Wade Beasley is accused of assaulting three FBI agents (J.M., G.C., R.S.) with a deadly weapon during an official interview on March 3rd, 2022. According to the complaint, when the agents arrived at Beasley's home, he pointed a firearm at his own head and then swept it towards the agents, causing them to fire in self-defense. Beasley then barricaded himself inside. Recordings of Beasley indicate he anticipated the agents' arrival and intended to resist and interfere with their duties. He is charged with assault on a federal officer using a deadly weapon.
Paula Jones v. President Clinton
(Can a sitting president avoid civil litigation due to separation of powers? No, he cannot, according to this court of law!)
Section 9 of the Evidence Act 1950 makes relevant facts establishing the identity of persons or things. It allows for identity to be proven through various means such as fingerprints, voice recognition, identity parades, photographs, and genetic fingerprinting. The document discusses these identity methods in detail, noting important cases that have guided Malaysian courts in assessing the admissibility and reliability of different identity evidence. It emphasizes that identity parades must be conducted properly to avoid unfairness or prejudice against the accused. Genetic fingerprinting through DNA analysis is also discussed as a powerful new tool for identifying suspects, especially in rape cases.
Darren_Chaker provides Motion for Judicial Notice, filed in California Supreme Court, in pending merits petition concerning the court taking notice of Secretary of State records in the appeal.
Federal Lawsuit San Diego Police Darren ChakerDarren Chaker
1983 civil rights lawsuit against San Diego Police, Darren_Chaker, provides concerning alleged civil rights abuse in California. Attorney fees are common in civil rights cases.
Impact litigation at its finest. Darren Chaker made law in Texas with top First Amendment law firm Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody - sure they cost a lot,but the case made law and now allows any person to access the full roster of peace officer and personnel employed by any municipal or state agency. Former Constable Ron Hickman, opposed Darren Chaker based on frivolous arguments disclosing the names of his employees would risk lives. Incredibly, every day peace officers go to court and state there name in open court, sign there name on affidavits for search and arrest warrants, and names appear in police reports. The arguments failed and the case has been used over 136 times by the media, individuals, and attorneys,
FOIA, protective order, law brief, Darren-Chaker, notes many of the legal cases in brief fit the facts of the case before the court. Often times the law allows attorney fees to the prevailing party.
1) Marc Curvesco was diagnosed with HIV in 2008 and warned by public health officials to use condoms and inform partners but refused.
2) He had unprotected sex with two partners, Kitty and Holly, without informing them of his HIV status.
3) Marc faces potential criminal charges of assault, aggravated assault, and causing bodily harm for endangering Kitty and Holly through his actions. Both women stated they would not have consented to unprotected sex if they knew of his HIV status.
The accused is appealing his conviction of negligence causing bodily harm and aggravated assault. He engaged in unprotected sex without disclosing his HIV-positive status, which resulted in his partners contracting HIV. The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered. The court found that failing to disclose HIV status prior to unprotected sex does not constitute fraud or vitiate consent under Canadian law.
Protecting Defendants
UAB PSC 381 Bill of Rights
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Bowers v. Hardick
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Usa vs. arhndt judge says police need a warrant to view files on wireless n...Umesh Heendeniya
This document provides background on a case involving the suppression of evidence obtained without a warrant. John Henry Ahrndt was indicted on child pornography charges. His motion to suppress was initially denied but was later granted by the Ninth Circuit which remanded the case. At a second evidentiary hearing, testimony was provided that a neighbor had connected to Ahrndt's unsecured wireless network and viewed file names suggesting child pornography. Police were contacted and viewed one image before losing the connection. Ahrndt now moves again to suppress the evidence against him.
Federal court, excluding police report, Darren Chaker, provides law on keeping a police report away from the jury in a criminal case, which is important since are usually hearsay and unreliable.
This document provides a summary of topics covered at a criminal law conference from 1-4 November 2010 presented by MAJ Mason Weiss. It discusses recent case law developments pertaining to crimes and defenses, evidence, findings and sentencing, self-incrimination, search and seizure, and pleas and pre-trial agreements. Numerous military court cases are summarized across these topics, with highlights including limitations on what can constitute solicitation and larceny offenses, standards for admitting evidence under Military Rules of Evidence, requirements for specifying findings of guilty, and limits on questioning service members for law enforcement purposes without Miranda warnings.
This Supreme Court of Georgia case involves Veasa Bun appealing his convictions of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of a sheriff's deputy. Bun received a sentence of life without parole plus 70 additional years. He argued this sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment as a juvenile. The court affirmed the sentence, finding the evidence supported the convictions and precedent has established that life without parole sentences for juveniles can be constitutional. The court also rejected Bun's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Three sentences:
Aniruddha Sherbow has been charged in the District of Columbia with transmitting threats in interstate commerce for leaving a threatening voicemail for Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and sending an email threatening to decapitate her. He was arrested in California based on these charges and is appearing for an initial appearance in federal court there. The documents provide details of the threatening communications and establish probable cause for the arrest.
We The People, session vii, Rights of the AccusedJim Powers
Alternate title: Cops, Courts and Corrections. We see how the Court has incorporated Bill of Rights protections for the accused as burdens on the states' justice systems.
In 1993, the mutilated bodies of three 8-year-old boys were found in West Memphis, Arkansas. Three teenagers - Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley, and Jason Baldwin - were convicted of the murders based primarily on circumstantial evidence and Misskelley's coerced confession. In 2011, after 17 years in prison, new DNA evidence excluded the three men and implicated new suspects. This case highlights the importance of proper chain of custody and evidence preservation procedures to avoid wrongful convictions and allow for the possibility of exoneration through advances in forensic technology.
Darren Chaker, opinion by federal court on privacy issues, and in federal case. Important issues in privacy and internet are addressed in lawsuit, very useful cases discussed.
Section 7 of the Evidence Act 1950 deals with facts that are the occasion, cause, or effect of facts in issue or relevant facts. It provides that such facts can be considered relevant. The document discusses the scope and application of Section 7 through examples and case law. It analyzes Section 7 under five grounds - as being the occasion of relevant facts, showing the cause, being the effect, providing opportunity, and constituting the state of things. Case law from both Malaysia and other common law countries is used to illustrate how Section 7 has been applied in practice.
Relevancy of evidence under Section 7 of Evidence Act 1950Intan Muhammad
P/S : I am sharing my personal notes of law-related subjects. Some parts of them are explained in a very informal-relaxed way and mix of languages (BM and English). Secondly, as law revolves every day, there will be outdated parts in my notes. Two ways of handling it.. (1) double check with the latest law and keep it to yourself (2) same with No. 1 coupled with your generosity to share with us, the LinkedIn users (hiks ^_^). Till then, have a nice day!
Bryan Coignet analyzes whether the consent to search given by Joel Woods, the co-occupant and leaseholder of the apartment, is valid despite the defendant Sean Beal not being present. Coignet concludes that the search is likely valid because Woods, as a co-occupant, reasonably appeared to have common authority over the living room where the search occurred. Even if Woods did not have actual authority, the officers reasonably believed he did as the leaseholder in the shared living space. Prior cases found parents and an uncle could consent to searches of shared bedrooms.
Matthew Wade Beasley is accused of assaulting three FBI agents (J.M., G.C., R.S.) with a deadly weapon during an official interview on March 3rd, 2022. According to the complaint, when the agents arrived at Beasley's home, he pointed a firearm at his own head and then swept it towards the agents, causing them to fire in self-defense. Beasley then barricaded himself inside. Recordings of Beasley indicate he anticipated the agents' arrival and intended to resist and interfere with their duties. He is charged with assault on a federal officer using a deadly weapon.
Paula Jones v. President Clinton
(Can a sitting president avoid civil litigation due to separation of powers? No, he cannot, according to this court of law!)
Section 9 of the Evidence Act 1950 makes relevant facts establishing the identity of persons or things. It allows for identity to be proven through various means such as fingerprints, voice recognition, identity parades, photographs, and genetic fingerprinting. The document discusses these identity methods in detail, noting important cases that have guided Malaysian courts in assessing the admissibility and reliability of different identity evidence. It emphasizes that identity parades must be conducted properly to avoid unfairness or prejudice against the accused. Genetic fingerprinting through DNA analysis is also discussed as a powerful new tool for identifying suspects, especially in rape cases.
Darren_Chaker provides Motion for Judicial Notice, filed in California Supreme Court, in pending merits petition concerning the court taking notice of Secretary of State records in the appeal.
Federal Lawsuit San Diego Police Darren ChakerDarren Chaker
1983 civil rights lawsuit against San Diego Police, Darren_Chaker, provides concerning alleged civil rights abuse in California. Attorney fees are common in civil rights cases.
Impact litigation at its finest. Darren Chaker made law in Texas with top First Amendment law firm Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody - sure they cost a lot,but the case made law and now allows any person to access the full roster of peace officer and personnel employed by any municipal or state agency. Former Constable Ron Hickman, opposed Darren Chaker based on frivolous arguments disclosing the names of his employees would risk lives. Incredibly, every day peace officers go to court and state there name in open court, sign there name on affidavits for search and arrest warrants, and names appear in police reports. The arguments failed and the case has been used over 136 times by the media, individuals, and attorneys,
FOIA, protective order, law brief, Darren-Chaker, notes many of the legal cases in brief fit the facts of the case before the court. Often times the law allows attorney fees to the prevailing party.
Darren Chaker Prior Restraint First AmendmentDarren Chaker
The document is an amicus letter brief submitted by media organizations including the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press to the Court of Appeal of California. The brief argues that the court's order sealing a reply brief and directing its return amounts to an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. The order prevents the media from possessing and reporting information that was lawfully obtained. Prior restraints are strongly disfavored and the order should be vacated to avoid establishing a dangerous precedent restricting lawful publication.
This memorandum argues that the DEA's practice of obtaining Oregon patients' prescription records from the state's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment. It asserts that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their prescription records, as these records can reveal sensitive health information. The memorandum maintains that both case law and state statutes recognize privacy interests in medical information. It concludes that the DEA must obtain a judicial warrant supported by probable cause before accessing individuals' prescription records from the PDMP.
Privacy Law Update Darren Chaker provides from a true leading law firm discusses privacy law , court cases, appellate opinions in federal and state court, as well as other privacy issues employers need to know in California.
San_Diego_ACLU brief filed in civil rights case in federal court, Darren Chaker provides this to the public to better understand the value and aptitude the ACLU brings to cases when it deals with civil rights matters,
CRJ 550Legal Issues in Criminal Justice AdministrationCase B.docxannettsparrow
CRJ 550
Legal Issues in Criminal Justice Administration
Case Brief ExampleThis is an example of a well-written case brief. Note the compliance with the required format and how the student gets right to the important points in plain language. If legal terms are encounter which are not understood, chances are that other students will not understand them, so it is best not to use them unless defined within the brief.
Assignment sub-heading: Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
TITLE AND CITATION: Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 104 S.Ct. 2501 (1984)
TYPE OF ACTION: Review by the U.S. Supreme Court of a lower court ruling that evidence should be suppressed as a result of a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The state (Nix) sought to overturn the motion to suppress that was upheld by the U.S. District Court of Appeals.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
On December 24, 1968, ten year old Pamela Powers was kidnapped from an Iowa YMCA and her body was later found in a ditch, which was within an extensive area that was being searched by volunteers and law enforcement. The defendant was observed “carrying a large bundle wrapped in a blanket…two legs in it and they were skinny and white.” Williams’ car, which contained clothing items belonging to the victim, was found the next day approximately 160 miles from the incident. Based on this information, an extensive search was started that extended from Des Moines to Davenport, Iowa.
Law enforcement obtained a warrant for Williams’ arrest, and he subsequently turned himself into the authorities in Davenport. Williams was arraigned and had obtained and spoken with an attorney. Des Moines police detectives agreed to transport Williams and not interview him during the drive between Davenport and Des Moines. During the drive, one of the detectives on the case began to speak to Williams regarding the need to find the child’s body before it snowed so that her parents could give her a proper, “Christian” burial. The detective did not ask Williams any specific questions during this conversation. At that point, Williams provided statements to the detectives that led them to the child’s body.
Williams was then tried in state court and was found guilty of first degree murder. Williams filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the body and all related evidence concerning the body’s location based on illegally obtained testimony. When the conviction was affirmed by the Iowa state Supreme Court, Williams sought relief in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The U.S. District Court, U.S. Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Williams and determined that he was denied the right to counsel and his statements, which led to the child’s body, could not be introduced into evidence.
Williams was tried in state court a second time, without the use by the prosecution of the statements he had given to detectives. Prosecutors introduced evidence of the child’s body under the premise.
Assignment 1 (Doesn’t have to be full page, citation is a MUST).docxtrippettjettie
Assignment 1 (Doesn’t have to be full page, citation is a MUST):
Kesha has invited her friend Carrie to go home with her over the school’s short holiday break. Kesha, like many African Americans, has a rich spiritual tradition that permeates most areas of her life. In addition, Kesha is close to her immediate and extended family. Carrie, on the other hand, comes from a predominantly Caucasian Presbyterian background, is an only child, and rarely sees any of her extended family.
During her visit, Carrie is noticeably uncomfortable with the vastly different dynamics of Kesha’s family. Carrie is rethinking her friendship with Kesha and wants to withdraw from her.
How will you help Carrie understand the cultural values inherent in the African American culture and how these might be affecting her?
Suggest ways in which Kesha could build a bridge to help Carrie understand the African American culture.
Assignment 2 (2 pages, CITATION IS A MUST):
Reflections on Racial Discrimination
Franklin hears about people being discriminated against at the workplace and in society but rarely experiences it first hand. Cortez, on the other hand, speaks English poorly and is often subject to derogatory comments from peers and coworkers.
Reflect on your experience with racial discrimination.
Identify examples of racial discrimination and provide examples you have personally witnessed or heard about firsthand from the following three realms:
· family
· work place
· community
Write a brief summary that includes the following:
· Describe a racial incident pertaining to each realm in detail. Explain why you believe this is racial discrimination.
· Explain how this situation could have been handled to avoid discrimination against those belonging to another race.
Your response should be at least two pages long. All written assignments and responses should follow APA rules for attributing sources.
Supreme Court of Tennessee,
at Nashville.
STATE of Tennessee
v.
Eric FLEMMING.
April 3, 2000.
Defendant was convicted in the Criminal
Court, Davidson County, Seth Norman, J., of espe-
cially aggravated robbery, and defendant appealed.
The Court of Criminal Appeals, Tipton, J., re-
versed. Upon granting state's petition for permis-
sion to appeal, the Supreme Court, Barker, J., held
that: (1) defendant's fists and feet were not deadly
weapons, and (2) evidence was sufficient to support
instruction on facilitation as lesser-included offense
of aggravated robbery.
Affirmed and remanded.
West Headnotes
[1] Statutes 361 1072
361 Statutes
361III Construction
361III(A) In General
361k1071 Intent
361k1072 k. In general. Most Cited
Cases
(Formerly 361k181(1))
Supreme Court's role in construing statutes is
to give effect to legislative intent without unduly
restricting or expanding statute's coverage beyond
its intended scope.
[2] Statutes 361 1092
361 Statutes
361III Construction
361III(B) Plain Language; Plain, Ordinary,
or Common Meaning
361k1092 k. ...
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES384 U.S. 436Miranda v. Arizo.docxmattinsonjanel
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
384 U.S. 436
Miranda v. Arizona
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
No. 759 Argued: February 28-March 1, 1966 --- Decided: June 13, 1966 [*]
In each of these cases, the defendant, while in police custody, was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. None of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all four cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions, and, in three of them, signed statements as well, which were admitted at their trials. All defendants were convicted, and all convictions, except in No. 584, were affirmed on appeal.
Held:
1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 444-491.
(a) The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating, and works to undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice. Pp. 445-458.
(b) The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system, and guarantees to the individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a period of custodial interrogation [p437] as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations. Pp. 458-465.
(c) The decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, stressed the need for protective devices to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege. Pp. 465-466.
(d) In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed: the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Pp. 467-473.
(e) If the individual indicates, prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease; if he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present. Pp. 473-474.
(f) Where an interrogation is conducted without the presenc ...
- Congressman James Sensenbrenner, author of the Patriot Act, filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs challenging the NSA's mass telephone metadata collection program.
- He argues that Congress intended to authorize collection of documents and records only upon a showing of relevance to an authorized investigation, not a blanket collection of all telephone call records.
- Sensenbrenner also asserts that Congress did not intend to authorize indiscriminate collection of data on every telephone call to or from the US, which violates the privacy of millions of innocent Americans.
Usa vs. arhndt judge says police need a warrant to view files on wireless n...Umesh Heendeniya
This document provides background on a case involving the suppression of evidence obtained without a warrant. John Henry Ahrndt was indicted on child pornography charges. His motion to suppress was initially denied but was later granted by the Ninth Circuit which remanded the case. At a second evidentiary hearing, testimony was provided that a neighbor had connected to Ahrndt's unsecured wireless network and viewed file names suggesting child pornography. Police were notified and viewed one image before losing the connection. Ahrndt now moves again to suppress the evidence against him.
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 - Police have no duty to protect c...Umesh Heendeniya
This document summarizes two court cases (No. 79-6 and No. 79-394) in which individuals sued the District of Columbia and police department for negligence. In No. 79-6, three women were sexually assaulted after multiple failed responses to their calls for help. The court found that the police department did not have a specific legal duty to provide protection to individuals. In No. 79-394, a man was assaulted after a police officer failed to obtain identification of the assailants. The court again found no specific legal duty was owed to individuals. The court affirmed that governments have a general duty to provide public services to the public at large, but not specific legal duties to individuals absent a special relationship.
1) The affiant, John M. O'Quinn, states that he hired Don Clark, a former highly trained FBI agent, to investigate the deaths of Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel.
2) Clark conducted extensive daily investigations and informed O'Quinn of his findings, including that Howard Stern was criminally responsible for their deaths by providing inappropriate amounts of prescription drugs.
3) O'Quinn relied on Clark's findings and his own courtroom observations in making public statements about Stern, and believes the statements to be true.
Brown Memo In Opposition To Contempt MotionJRachelle
This document is a memorandum filed by attorney Susan Brown in opposition to a motion seeking to hold her in contempt of court. It summarizes the following key points:
1) Defendant Thompson owned a property in the Bahamas called "Horizons" and had a right to possession after Anna Nicole Smith's death.
2) After Smith's death, Defendant Shelley and others entered Horizons to secure it upon being told by Bahamian attorneys and courts to do so immediately.
3) Brown's involvement was limited and she claims to never have publicly disclosed or transferred any materials belonging to Smith's estate in violation of the court order.
This document is an affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant of a residence in Urbandale, Iowa as part of an ongoing criminal investigation. The affidavit provides background details on the investigation, which involves allegations of ongoing criminal conduct, conspiracy, solicitation, extortion, and witness tampering against Tracey Richter. It outlines a complex set of events involving Richter, her ex-husbands Dr. John Pitman and Michael Roberts, and a man named Dustin Wehde who was shot and killed by Richter in 2001 during an alleged home invasion.
TERESA LOPEZ, individually and as heir
to ANTONIO RAMOS, deceased;
RED RYDER RAMOS, individually and as
heir to ANTONIO RAMOS, deceased; and
TERESA LOPEZ and RED RYDER
RAMOS, as co-representatives of the
ESTATE OF ANTONIO RAMOS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, a
governmental entity,
The document is a motion to remand a case to the grand jury for a redetermination of probable cause. It argues that the defendant Courtney Daughtry's due process rights were violated in the original grand jury proceeding in three ways:
1. The indictment was based on false testimony that Courtney was the primary caregiver for her grandmother, when in fact her father was the primary caregiver.
2. Exculpatory evidence that the jewelry was gifted to Courtney as part of a family tradition, rather than stolen, was not presented to the grand jury.
3. The prosecutor interfered with a grand juror's questioning about the relationship between Courtney and her grandmother and the elements of assuming
Similar to Darren Chaker Fourth Amendment Order (12)
Scott McMillan San Diego Attorney SanctionsDarren Chaker
San Diego attorney Scott McMillan was sanctioned as shown by this court order where Scott McMillan , McMillan Law Firm, La Mesa, had to notify the court he paid the money ordered by the court. Scott McMillan has a long history of losing cases. This is just one case where he suffered an adverse result.
Scott McMillan lost a major lawsuit against Darren Chaker, where San Diego attorney Scott McMillan demanded posts about Scott McMillan are deindexed by Google. The Ninth Circuit found Darren Chaker did not violate any law and affirmed the dismissal order of the lower court. This brief was filed by the law firm who represented Darren Chaker on appeal.
San Diego attorney Scott McMillan lost another major case in California concerning a wrongful death claim. The theories of liability Scott McMillan San Diego attorney put before the court were nothing more than meritless and the appellate court rejected his arguments just as the trial court did. Several other major losses of Scott McMillan , office in La Mesa, CA, were posted online including a case where he conceded he made false statements to the court. See United States District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 3:16-cv-2186, Doc 82.
San Diego Scott McMillan Attorney SanctionsDarren Chaker
Scott McMillan San Diego attorney, McMillan Academy of Law dean, order sanctioned for misconduct, malpractice, San Diego Superior Court. Court awarded sanctions against Scott McMillan, same time frame Michelle Volk , San Diego Attorney , now works for JohnWHoardAttorneys John_Howard_Attorney_San_Diego , had worked for McMillan_Law_Firm_La_Mesa
Scott McMillan San Diego attorney, small office in La Mesa, was sued repeatedly for legal malpractice and had other cases dismissed due to failing to file a filing fee, a brief, or other procedural issue. After San Diego attorney Scott McMillan lost a major case where he sued Darren Chaker in federal court attempting to have information about a child molestation report naming Scott McMillan removed and his past sanctions taken off search results, he ended up committing malpractice against himself where his own appeal was dismissed, just read the order!
Brief filed in Hassell v. Bird, posted by Darren Chaker. The California Supreme Court found federal law protects websites from claims even where defamation is alleged. Several briefs were filed in the Supreme Court concerning this case.
Darren Chaker shares a great case concerning the First Amendent and how probable cause to arrest may be determined by police. The Ninth Circuit gives a great analysis of the protection given by the First Amendment.
The document is an application for leave to file an amici curiae brief in support of appellant Yelp, Inc. in a case before the California Supreme Court. The application was filed by several technology companies and non-profits, including Change.org, Engine, GitHub, Medium, Patreon, SiteJabber, and Wikimedia Foundation. They argue that the Court of Appeal's ruling deprives small collaborative platforms of important Section 230 immunity protections and threatens their ability to operate as forums for free expression and economic growth if upheld.
San Diego attorney Scott McMillan recently lost a major lawsuit where he sought to have websites that published about being in a report for child molestation, losing dozens of cases, settling a lawsuit for $20, from multiple search engines. Scott McMillan suffered a major loss when the federal court was defeated. Next, it appears Scott McMillan La Mesa attorney lumped in request to seal records with a request to order the defendant from publishing additional material about Scott McMillan. Ninth Circuit recently denied Scott McMillan's request for an injunction. The child molestation report is part of San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2017-0036344 and clearly lists San Diego attorney Scott McMillan as being involved.
Scott McMillan La Mesa Faces Sanctions for Lying to CourtDarren Chaker
The defendant objects to the plaintiffs' claim that this case is related to a previous criminal case. The defendant argues that the cases do not meet the criteria to be considered related under the local civil rules as they do not involve the same parties, claims, property, or events. Additionally, the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs' counsel failed to properly file a notice of related cases as required by the rules. The defendant requests that the court deny the plaintiffs' claim of related cases and considers sanctions against the plaintiffs' counsel for failing to follow the proper procedures.
Darren Chaker shares this brief on Cell phone location data, and how police obtain this data without a warrant. The brief filed by the EFF and filed in the Supreme Court focuses on the expectation of privacy.
Cases concerns cell tower privacy, use of Stingray, and other investigative devices continues , and we hope the Supreme Court provides some clarification on the rule.
This document is an amicus brief filed by the First Amendment Lawyers Association in support of the respondent in the Supreme Court case United States v. Alvarez. The brief argues that the government's position urging limits on First Amendment protections is alarming and inconsistent with decades of precedent. It asserts that the Court should reject defining new categories of unprotected speech and should apply the traditional categorical approach to determining protection, maintaining a strong presumption of protection for all expression. The brief aims to caution the Court against eroding established First Amendment principles in this case.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether law enforcement's acquisition of seven months of cell site location information from a suspect's cell phone provider without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Circuit initially ruled that it did violate the Fourth Amendment, but then reversed en banc. The petitioner argues that the Supreme Court should reconsider precedents on reasonable expectations of privacy and the third-party doctrine in light of new technologies that can track location over long periods of time without user knowledge. The petitioner also argues the good faith exception should not apply given ambiguities in the Stored Communications Act.
Scott McMillan, Michelle Volk , of McMillan_Law_Firm_La_Mesa sued for fraud, legal malpractice and sounds to me like elder abuse by forcing a lady to work for free. Read the pending federal lawsuit for details brought by a top national law firm in San Diego. The San Diego federal court case is now pending.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...
Darren Chaker Fourth Amendment Order
1. 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
* * *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHAUN JERMAINE ESTES,
Defendants.
3:15-CR-00015-LRH-VPC
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Shaun Jermaine Estes’ (“Estes”) Motion to Suppress. Doc.
#38.1
The United States of America (“United States”) filed an opposition (Doc. #41), to which
Estes replied (Doc. #43). An evidentiary hearing was held on March 30 and 31, 2016, during
which witnesses testified and exhibits were admitted.
During the course of the suppression hearing, defense counsel offered into evidence
exhibits numbered 125, 126, 127, 128 and 130, which were records subpoenaed by the defense
from T-Mobile U.S., Inc., and related documents, relevant to the history of Estes’ cell phone
usage on December 4, 2014. The government objected to the records based upon their prior non
disclosure to the government and the Court reserved ruling but conditionally admitted them and
allowed time for the parties to submit points and authorities in support of their respective
positions. In reviewing the recent points and authorities filed by the parties and further
considering the failure of disclosure of the telephonic records to the government, as had been
ordered by the Court in its October 22, 2015 order (ECF No. 34), the Court is hereby sustaining
1
Refers to the Court’s docket number.
Case 3:15-cr-00015-LRH-VPC Document 70 Filed 04/18/16 Page 1 of 7
2. 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the government’s objection to the admissibility of Exhibits 125, 126, 127, 128 and 130, and is
not considering them in deciding the motion to suppress before the court.
I. Factual Background
On December 4, 2014, in Reno, Nevada, Amtrak Detective Madhu Kurup (“Kurup”)
contacted Estes while he was on the Amtrak train platform smoking a cigarette and speaking on
his cell phone. Estes was en route by train from Chicago, Illinois, to Emeryville, California. The
train had made a brief stop of less than 15 minutes at the Reno station. Sometime prior to the
train’s arrival, Kurup, as a member of a drug interdiction team associated with the Reno Police
Department, studied passenger booking records and found that Estes’ one-way ticket had been
purchased with a credit card in another person’s name on November 29, 2014, for travel
beginning December 2, 2014. Kurup considered this to be an indicator of an intent to transport
illegal contraband and/or profits made from the sales of illegal contraband. A Reno police
detective and a canine officer from the interdiction team were requested for purposes of
investigation of Estes during the train’s stop in Reno.
When the train stopped in Reno, Kurup and Reno police detective Tony Moore
(“Moore”) had checked Estes’ cabin and found it empty. Shortly afterward, Kurup observed a
man speaking on a cell phone and smoking a cigarette on the passenger platform adjacent to the
train. Suspecting this might be Estes, Kurup approached him, displayed his badge, identified
himself and confirmed that the individual was Estes. Kurup directed Estes to get off the phone
and Estes complied. Kurup then asked to see Estes’ identification and train ticket, which Estes
provided. With Moore then standing nearby, Kurup advised Estes that he was suspected of illegal
activity and asked if Estes had any illegal weapons, large amounts of drugs, or large amounts of
money. Estes responded that he was not in possession of anything illegal. Kurup then asked
Estes for consent to search his room and luggage. Estes refused to consent. Kurup then advised
Estes that a police dog would be deployed in the area of Estes’ train cabin and if the dog gave a
positive alert, Estes’ belongings would be seized and a search warrant would be obtained. Kurup
and Moore then alerted canine Officer Jayson Hill (“Hill”), who was stationed nearby with his
Case 3:15-cr-00015-LRH-VPC Document 70 Filed 04/18/16 Page 2 of 7
3. 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
police dog. With Estes, Kurup and Moore in the hallway area outside Estes’ cabin, Hill lead his
dog through hallway.
The person with whom Estes had been speaking on his cell phone on the train platform
was a longtime friend, Erika Dean. During the time that Kurup and Moore escorted Estes back to
the area of his train cabin, Dean was concerned about her terminated phone conversation with
Estes and repeatedly attempted to call him back on his cell phone. Her calls went unanswered
until either Kurup or one of the officers finally answered the phone and advised that Estes could
not speak with her.
When the police dog was led down the hallway by Estes’ room, it showed some interest
outside of the room, but did not “alert” on the room. The officers knew they could not seize
Estes’ belongings and obtain a search warrant due to the lack of a positive alert by the dog.
However, Kurup did not advise Estes that the canine had not alerted on Estes’ room. Instead
either Kurup or Moore told him that the dog had shown strong interest in the room. According to
Kurup, Estes then responded that he had a small amount of marijuana in his room and he then
gave his consent to Kurup to search the room and Estes’ baggage. According to Kurup, Estes
opened his luggage bag in the room and removed a small bag of marijuana and Kurup then, with
Estes’ consent, searched the remainder of the bag and found a 9mm Kel-Tec handgun. Kurup
told Estes he was in violation of Amtrak’s firearms policy and he would be removed from the
train. Detective Moore thereafter contacted records and learned that Estes had a prior felony
conviction. Estes was then placed under arrest for Felon in Possession of a Firearm and placed in
handcuffs. Estes made an unsolicited comment that he had purchased the weapon from a pawn
shop in Arkansas and he believed the purchase was legitimate and legal. After exiting the train
and meeting up with transport officers, Estes was advised of his Miranda rights and repeated the
statement. He was then booked in jail.2
II. Legal Standard
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures.
U.S. Const. amend. IV. Any evidence resulting from an unconstitutional search or seizure cannot
2
Estes has been in federal custody since March 12, 2015.
Case 3:15-cr-00015-LRH-VPC Document 70 Filed 04/18/16 Page 3 of 7
4. 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
be admitted as proof against the victim of the search, and therefore must be suppressed. See
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). Although
warrantless searches generally are impermissible under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments,
one exception to the warrant requirement is for searches conducted pursuant to valid consent.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973). The government must prove that a consent
to search is voluntary by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S.
164, 177 (1974). A consent to search is valid if the consent was freely and voluntarily given and
not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied. Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 228. Whether
the consent given to search was freely and voluntarily given is a question of fact to be
determined by the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 248–49. The government's burden of
demonstrating that the consent was freely and voluntarily given is a heavy one. United States v.
Chan-Jimenez, 125 F.3d 1324 (9th Cir. 1997).
III. Discussion
Estes argues, among other things, that he did not consent to the search of his belongings
on the Amtrak train and that even if he did, his consent was not freely and voluntarily given. The
United States argues that the search of Estes’ belongings was constitutional because Estes
provided voluntary consent for the search.
The Court finds that Erika Dean’s testimony at the suppression hearing was very credible.
Estes and Dean were engaged in a cell phone conversation when Kurup approached Estes, Kurup
directed Estes to get off the phone, Estes complied with the request. Dean could hear Estes being
directed to get off the phone and she became concerned when Estes did not call her back shortly
thereafter. She then repeatedly attempted to call Estes back, several calls went unanswered, until
finally an officer answered and spoke briefly to her. Kurup testified that he never saw Estes
speaking on the phone on the platform, never told him to get off the phone, never heard the
phone ring while he was with Estes, and never answered the phone or spoke with a caller. The
two police officers had no recollection of Estes using his phone, the phone ringing or anyone
answering it.
Case 3:15-cr-00015-LRH-VPC Document 70 Filed 04/18/16 Page 4 of 7
5. 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In order to establish the validity of a consent to search, the government bears the heavy
burden of demonstrating that the consent was freely and voluntarily given. Schneckloth, 412 U.S.
at 222. Whether consent to search was voluntarily given or not is “to be determined from the
totality of all the circumstances.” Id. at 227. In United States v. Welch, 4 F.3d 761, 763 (9th
Cir.1993), the Ninth Circuit identified several factors to be considered in determining whether
consent to search was voluntary. Among the factors that tend to show a lack of voluntariness are:
(1) the person was in custody; (2) the officer had his weapon drawn; (3) the officer failed to
administer Miranda warnings; (4) the officer did not inform the person of his right to refuse to
consent; and (5) the person was told that a search warrant could be obtained. Chan-Jimenez, 125
F.3d at 1327. The government must prove that a consent to search is voluntary by a
preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 178, 94 S. Ct. 988, 996,
39 L. Ed. 2d 242 (1974).
The United States has not met its burden to show that consent by Estes was freely and
voluntarily given. When initially asked, Estes expressly refused to consent to the search of his
room or his bags. Kurup then advised Estes that a police dog would be deployed and if the dog
gave a positive alert, Estes’ items would be seized and a search warrant would be obtained. The
threatened seizure of Estes’ bags is significant when it is considered that Estes was traveling by
train across the country, and this incident was occurring during a brief stop along his journey to
California. Then, shortly after being told that an alert of Estes’ room by the police dog would
result in his bags being seized, Estes was informed that the dog had shown strong interest in the
room. No one explained to Estes the difference between an “interest” and an “alert” by the dog,
and it was shortly afterward that the disputed consent by Estes was given. The context in which
the statements were made strongly suggested that if Estes did not now consent to a search, his
bags would be seized and a search warrant would be obtained. Particularly after refusing to
consent to a search just minutes before, the court does not find that a free and voluntary consent
to search then occurred. See United States v. Armijo, 781 F. Supp. 1551, 1558 (D.N.M. 1991)
(“In fact, prior to being threatened that his car and his mother would be detained, Mr. Armijo
unequivocally declined to consent to a search of his luggage. It was only after Agent Small's
Case 3:15-cr-00015-LRH-VPC Document 70 Filed 04/18/16 Page 5 of 7
6. 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
threat that Mr. Armijo reluctantly surrendered the luggage. It is clear, therefore, his consent was
not voluntarily given”).
The court is troubled by the lack of credibility which permeates the Kurup testimony in
this case. The court comments on some of the factors of concern:
Kurup described a very consensual and casual conversation with Estes on the train
platform. The fact is that the encounter with Estes had been carefully planned by the drug
interdiction team composed of Kurup, Detective Moore, and canine Officer Hill. The only
purpose of their being together at the Reno train station was to confront Estes and to act within
an approximate ten to fifteen minute period of the train’s temporary stop. When Kurup
approached Estes on the train platform, there was an obvious immediacy in the encounter. The
denial by Kurup of Estes being involved in a cell phone conversation on the train platform, of
directing Estes to get off the phone and not hearing repeated return calls by Erika Dean in the
several minutes following the conversation, raises serious questions concerning Kurup’s
description of a seizure-free atmosphere surrounding Estes as well as Kurup’s credibility in
general.
Further concern arises from the warning given to Estes that if he refused to consent to a
search, that a canine sniff would be conducted and if the dog alerted to the room or Estes’
belongings, Estes’ belongings would be seized and a search warrant obtained, obviously
separating Estes from his luggage. Further concern arises after the dog did not alert to the room,
which was a fact only appreciated by Kurup and the police officers. Notwithstanding the clear
lack of probable cause for a search and seizure, Estes was then informed that the dog had shown
serious interest in the room. Estes would likely have no idea of the difference between an alert
and only interest in the room. The “serious interest” comment was obviously imparted with the
hope that it would bring about a consent by Estes to a search of his room and luggage. At no time
was Estes told of his right to refuse consent.
Kurup’s credibility is further strained by the consent then attributed to Estes. Although
Kurup and the two police officers were at the train stop together for the ten to fifteen minute
period for the specific purpose of investigating Estes and his possible involvement with drugs,
Case 3:15-cr-00015-LRH-VPC Document 70 Filed 04/18/16 Page 6 of 7
7. 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Estes’ voluntary consent to search testified by Kurup was not witnessed at any time by either of
the two police officers. No attempt was made by Kurup to have Detective Moore or Officer Hill
witness or confirm the alleged consent by Estes, no attempt was made to create an audio
recording of Estes’ consent, and no attempt was made to obtain a written consent from Estes
although a consent form is a standard form used in Reno police investigations.
IV. Conclusion
Considering all of the above, and particularly because the consent claimed by Kurup is
totally uncorroborated, the government has failed to meet its burden to prove a free and
voluntary consent in this case. As a result, the evidence seized and any incriminatory statements
arising from such an unlawful seizure must be suppressed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Estes’ Motion to Suppress (Doc. #38) is
GRANTED, the Indictment against Estes is DISMISSED and trial is VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 18th day of April, 2016.
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:15-cr-00015-LRH-VPC Document 70 Filed 04/18/16 Page 7 of 7