An automobile stop may be based upon reasonable suspicion, i.e., a reasonable belief that criminal activity is afoot.
Here, Jones stop is unreasonable because John violated no law, was not wearing the identifying baseball cap, and the vehicle make wasn't specified in the police report.
Therefore, the stop was unlawful.
Evidence obtained as part of an unlawful search and seizure is inadmissible against the defendant as "fruit of the poisonous tree."
Here, because Jones spotted the incriminate baseball cap after making an unlawful stop, the baseball cap cannot be used as evidence to prove that Jones is the thief. Similarly, John's having no license is also inadmissible, because but for the unlawful stop, his not having a license would not have been discovered.
However, evidence otherwise inadmissible, becomes admissible if the government proves by a preponderance of evidence that it would have been discovered inevitably.
Here, if the state could show that the vehicle would have later been identified more precisely and that it would have been stopped by other police officers in the vicinity, then perhaps the court would find the baseball cap admissilbe.
On balance here, this is an unlikely outcome and the baseball cap will be inadmissible.
Failure to advise a person of their constitutional rights after arrest, renders any self-incriminating statements inadmissible against that person.
Here, John's statements about his license and borrowing the car from his uncle were made prior to arrest, so they are each admissible, regardless of the failure to give a MIranda Warning.
Regardless, as the stop was bad from the outset, all of the evidence later acquired is inadmisslbe, and John cannot be prosecuted for the theft.
rights under the fifth amendements, asks him if he was involved in the robbery. John tells him that he was and tells the officer that the gun he used is in the trunk. Officer Jones recovers the gun in the trunk and the baseball cap as evidence. John then tells the officer that he's a memeber of the street gang MS13 and that this was part of the initiation
Essay1 If you were the police odfficer who arrested John, with what crimes would you charge him?
Essay2) If you were the defense attorney, what arguments do you make in court challenging the police stop of your client? If you 're the district attorney, what arguments would you make in support of the police stop?
Essay3) If you're the defense attorney what arguments do you make in court to exclude from evidence the statememts that your client made to the police? If you're the district attorney, what arguments would you make to allow the admissibility of the statement?
Essay4) If you're a social worker hired by John's family to prepare a favorable report for the sentencing court, what factors would you look for John's background to help mitigate the sentence?
These are the answers I need for this assignments... In essay form and about 250 words each. The end of the story is what I wrote on the top.
Officer Jones can charge John with: robbery for taking the vehicle at gunpoint; driving without a license; obstruction of justice for lying to the officer about borrowing the car from John's his uncle; conspiracy to commit robbery, for taking the vehicle as part of an agreement with the gang; RICO racketering for the combination of robbery and obstruction of justice.
E2 and E3: are completely covered by my first answer in this thread, and I would answer the together, because they are both essentially the same question.
Except that I will amend my answer to incude your remaining facts, as follows:
Here, John's statements about his license and borrowing the car from his uncle were made prior to arrest, so they are each admissible, despite the failure to give a MIranda Warning.
As to the statements made by John after his arrest, about the location of the gun, and John's membership in the MS13 gang,they are each inadmissible against him, because no Miranda Warning was provided, prior to John's confessing.
In summary, as the stop was bad from the outset, all of the evidence later acquired is inadmisslbe, and John cannot be prosecuted for the theft.
E4: A social worker could argue that John had no prior arrests or convictions, no one ad no thing was injured during the robbery, and John was a unwitting victim of the coercive effect of the MS13 gang, having come from an environment where survival frequently means alignment with a gang.
Ok here goes the questions.
1. The supreme court recognized that justification for a lawful arrest is sufficien for a search in which of the following cases?
a.Maryland v Buie
b. united states v. edwards
c. United states v. robinson
d. James v. louisiana
2.In which of the following cases did the supreme court rule that permission given by a third person to law enforcement officers to conduct a warrantless search is valid if the htird person reasonbly believes that he or she has that authority ,even if she or he doesn't
a. illinois v rodriguez
b.chapman v. united states
c. stoner v california
d. coolidgev. new hampshire
3. in which of the following cases did the court rule that a landlord's rights don't include permission for the landlord to consent to a warrantless search of a tenant's premises
a. illinois v. rodriguez
b. chapman v. united states
c. stoner v. california
d. united states v. matlock
4. in which of the following cases did the court decide that a prosecutor has the burden to show that consent was freely and voluntarily given.
b. bumper v. north carolina
d. united states v matlock
5. In which of the following cases did the supreme court rule that there's n voluntary consent to a search when a law enforcement officer claims that the occupant doesn't have a right to resist search?
b. bumper v. north crolina
c. ohio v. robinette
6. In which of the following cases did the supreme court say that a person doesn'thave a reasonable expectation of rivacy regarding a vehicle identification number?
a. Minnesota v. dckerson
b. chadwick v. united states
c.coolidge v. new hampshire
d. new yorj v. class
7. in whic of the following cases did the supreme court talk about the discovery of contraband duing a valid terry search for a weapon in n utomobile?
a. Minnesota v. Dickerson
b.michigan v. long
c.texas v. brown
d. nw york v. class
8 In which of the following cases did the supreme court say ht if there's no probable cause and an object in plain view isn't immediately and apparently contrabnd, then the plain view doctrin won't extend to the seizure of that object in plain view?
a. minnesota . Dickerson
b.Michigan v. long
c. coolidge v. new hampshire
d. horton v. california
9. if law enforcement officershave probable cause to search a specific container in a vehicle tey may search the container but not the entire vehicle, according to the supreme court in which of the following cases?
a. california v. acevdo
b. caroll v. united states
c. colorado v. betrine
d. united states v. Di Re
10. After a vehicle is impounded, law enforcement officers may do an iventory search according to which of the following supreme courst cases?
a. clifornia v. acevad
b. south dakota v. opperman
c. colorado v. bertrine
d. uited states v. di re
11. in what case did the supreme court rule an invetory search of an impounded vehicle couldinclude the opening of closed container in the vehicle?
a. california v. acevado
c.colorado v. bertrine
d. illinois v.lafayette
12. the supreme court directly addresses the issue of whether the caroll doctrine applied to lugguage in a vehicle in which of the following cases?
a. united states v. chadwick
d.illinois v. lafayette
13. the supreme court said that a reasonable expectation of privacy extends to the area immediately surrounding the home in which of the following cases?
a. florida v. riley
b. oliver v. unites states
c.united states v. dunn
d california v. ciraolo
14. In which of the following cases did the supreme court rule that fourth amendment preotection don't extend to open fields?
a. Hester v nited states
b. Abel v. united states
c. united states v dunn
d. Dow chemical co v. united states
15. n which of the following cases did the supreme court rule that there's nothing unlawful about the warrantless seizure of abandonned property by law enforcement officer?
a. Hester v. united states
b. abel v. united states
c.califrnia v greenwood
16. If a police officer changes his position to get a better view of the interior of a vehicle there's no legitimate expectation of privacy under
a. united statesd v. silva
b. texas v. brown.
c. trask.v robbins
d United states v. eaton
17. The supreme court recognized the need for a plain feel exception to the stop and frisk doctrine in which of the following cases?
a. Minnesota v. dickerson
b. michigan v. Long
c. california v. hodari
d. united states v Mendenhall
18. Police officer can search a mobile car without a search warrant if ther's probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband under
a. united states v. Mckeever
b. chambers v. maroney
c. pennsylvania v. labron
d. united states v. tate
19. in which of the following cases did the supreme court say that when there's a lawful custodial arrest in a car , a law enforcement officer may search the paessenger compartment of the car?
a. chimel v. california
b.united state v. robinson
c. united states v. chadwick
d. New york v. belton
20. The supreme court said a search must be contemporaneous with the arrest in which of the following cases?
a. chimel california
b.united states v. edward
d. james v. louisana
I have accepted the questions that you have answers for me in the past. Sorry about the confusion. But if you don't mind please help me with these question. It is criminal procedures.. Thanks in advanceCustomer/p>40051.0654740394
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).