.png){kind=logo}
Briefs of Leading Cases in Law Enforcement, 10e Rolando Del Carmen
(Case Solutions All Chapter)
- / 3
Copyright © 2020, Taylor & Francis. All Rights Reserved.del Carmen and Walker: Briefs of Leading Cases in Law Enforcement, Tenth Edition
Apply the Case Law: Search of a Residence with Warrant
A law enforcement officer swore an affidavit for a search warrant that was signed by a magistrate. The officer exercised the warrant and seized evidence based on the search. The affidavit’s material facts, which were used to support the finding of probable cause for the search, read as follows: On November 13, 2014, Louis and Clarke were shot to death with 9-millimeter rounds.Timmy, an individual incarcerated in the North Bluff County Jail, confessed his involvement in the murders to at least three people, one of whom was Bill, a friend of the suspect. Bill told law enforcement officials that Timmy told him that Timmy had traded a pistol for marijuana with an individual named “Blacky.” Blacky was known to law enforcement as Roberto Gonzales. Bill knew that Blacky lived at the address listed on the search warrant.The affidavit described the “thing to be searched for” as a 9-millimeter pistol and/or ammunition and the place to be searched as Gonzales’s residence. The officer exercised the warrant and seized evidence based on the search. While searching the residence, officers found several items that they suspected were stolen. The officers radioed the police station and had the serial numbers checked out, determining that the items were stolen. The officers also discovered cocaine and related paraphernalia, marijuana, and several firearms. However, the pistol they were looking for was not among the items seized.Questions 1.Which cases are most applicable to these facts?
2.What was the basis for the search in this case?
3.Could the officers legally seize the drugs?
4.Could the officers legally seize the firearms?
5.Could the officers legally seize the suspected stolen items?This is Case Notes/Answers for the chapter end Cases 2 / 3
Copyright © 2020, Taylor & Francis. All Rights Reserved.
Answers
- Which cases are most applicable to these facts?
- What was the basis for the search in this case?
- Could the officers legally seize the drugs?
- Could the officers legally seize the firearms?
- Could the officers legally seize the suspected stolen items?
- / 3
• Edwards v. Arizona (Chapter 17) to address whether the jailhouse confession of Timmy to Bill was constitutional (students will need more information about whether Timmy had requested a lawyer and in what capacity Bill was or was not working for the police).• Illinois v. Gates (Chapter 1) to address the totality of the circumstances of whether law enforcement officers had probable cause for the search.• United States v. Leon (Chapter 2) if the argument is made that there was insufficient evidence in the affidavit to establish probable cause for the warrant.• Arizona v. Hicks (Chapter 13) to address whether the stolen items were in plain view, because they were not immediately recognizable as stolen and the serial numbers had to be called in.• Horton v. California (Chapter 13) to address whether the drugs were in plain view – “inadvertent discovery.”
A search warrant. The stolen property and drugs were seized under the plain view doctrine.
Yes. The drugs were immediately recognizable as contraband, and the officers were legally in the place to be searched.
Yes. The firearms were immediately recognizable as contraband, and the officers were legally in the place to be searched.
Probably not. The stolen items were not immediately recognizable as contraband, and the officers had to radio in for confirmation.
.png)