Have Legal Questions? Ask a Lawyer Now.
Police officer Jerry has developed probable cause to arrest elaine bennis for conspiracy to commit theft. he also has probable to search her home for the stolen item, namely a valuable pendant inscribed "to elaine, with love G". jerry secured a search warrant but elected not to secure an arrest warrant. he and officer kramer went to the house bennis was residing at, and upon properly knocking and announcing their presence, let themselves in when no one responded. inside, jerry and kramer saw an individual seated on the living room sofa listening to music through a set headphones.The officers approached, explained their presence, andand immediately arrested bennis when she identified herself. jerry then searched bennis and found the pendant insisde pants pockects along with one roll of undeveloped film subsequently developed and found to contain certain terrorists training camp locations.
kramer searched the living room area and found an unregistered gun in a closed drawer of a coffee table next to the sofa, a small vial of cocaine sitting out on the sofa cushion( the vial was supplied by elaine's friend newman) and a series of pornographic pictures of a young boy known to the officers to be the son of prominent local doctor, jon carter, under the sofa cushions. he also saw a computer on a small desk near the coffee table. He turn it on a nd discovered it was not password XXXXX whereupon he briefly looked through some of the filesuntihe discovered two in particular:one that read " georgeporn.rude.jpg." and one that read "training camp sites for future use." the first file contained hundresds of kiddie porn pictures. the second file was empty.
As it turns out, elaine also had a friend at her house when jerry and kramer arrived. his name s George, and he was a good enough friend such that he had planned to stay the night. After the officersfound the gun, cocaine and pongraphy, they also arrested George. Kramer, a well intentioned but not too smart rookie officer, asked George at whether he possessed any contraband including weapons. George at first refused to answer but then told officer kramerthere were drugs upstairs. Kramer susequently searched upstairs rooms in the house. he found georges shaving ki in an upstairs dresser and opened it up. inside the kit were 40grams of crack cocaine..
Answer the following uestions without assuming any facts but taking a postion basedon the natural infrences drawn from facts in the hypothetical.
a) Is the pendant recovered from elaine legally seized and therefore properly admissible in a trial against elaine? against George?
b) Are the gun and ponography, inculding the computer kiddie porn, recovered in the apartment legally seized and therefore admissible in a trial against elaine? against george?
C) Are the pictures made from the undeveloped roll of film legally seized and therefore admissible at trial against elaine? against george?
d)Is the cocaine found in elaines residence legally seized and therefore admissible in a trial ainst elaine? against george?
e) Is the crack found in georges shving kit legally siezed and therefore admissible in a trial against george? against elaine?
a. No. At the time they had no probable cause to arrest her so their search of her person resulting in the pendant was illegal...violating her 4th amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. George: it would not be admissible against him since found on elaine's person, whether the search was legal or not. Plus G has no standing to move to suppress.
b. Elaine: gun and porn under the sofa..yes against her per search warrant and it was her home. Against George....no he is a guest. Computer kiddie porn against Elaine.....no. not covered by the warrant. Against George...no..not covered by the warrant/ no consent and he is a guest.
c. Roll of film........elaine...no (see a above); george.no see a. above.
d. cocaine vial against elaine.....yes...warrant and plain view. George?......no...he is a guest only.
e. crack in shaving kit against elaine........no....not covered by warrant and it was G's personal property. Against G......no....he was never given Miranda warnings so the search was fruit of the poisonous tree.
This is information only, NOT legal advice. No attorney-client relationship has been created. Consult an attorney in your state for legal advice regarding your issue.
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).