StudyDaddy Law

Answered You can buy a ready-made answer or pick a professional tutor to order an original one.

QUESTION

Oct 25, 2016

Suppression

Two police officers were patrolling in a high-crime neighborhood. They noticed a parked car with two people inside (a driver and a passenger). The officers saw a young woman leaning into the passenger's window and handing the passenger an object, which they could not identify. At this point they approached the car and the woman began to walk away. One of the officers noticed the passenger making a shoving down motion, leading the officer to believe that the passenger might be armed. The officer drew his gun and shouted "let me see your hands." After making more shoving down motions, the passenger complied. The officer reached into the car and touched a bulge in the passenger's pocket. He felt large, hard objects which he believed to be rocks of crack cocaine. He then removed a plastic bag from the pocket. It contained several rocks of crack cocaine that, together with another rock found in the passenger's clothing, totaled almost 100 grams. The passenger was arrested, but the driver and the woman standing outside it were not.

Should the passenger's motion to suppress the seized evidence be granted? Please provide a single video presentation that contains your response to this question, followed by your response to the question from the second case below.

On a routine patrol, an officer noticed a parked car. Two people were inside, and they were in a high crime area near a bar that was known for gang activity. In the past, the officer had responded to calls from the bar for everything from murder to public intoxication. The officer testified that he stopped to see if the individuals were committing a crime, lived in the area, or had some other concern. When the officer pulled behind the car and illuminated the car with his spotlight, he observed the passenger fumbling with something on the floorboard. As the officer was checking for identification, he noticed a bullet on top of the console of the car. The officer had the individuals step out of the car to ensure that they did not have any weapons. After frisking them for weapons, the officer looked in the area where he observed the passenger fumbling with something to see if he was hiding a gun. The officer said he was checking this area for his safety and to make sure that nobody would get hurt. The officer observed a 12-pack of beer on the floorboard and checked inside for a gun. When he moved the carton, he found a small baggy underneath it containing a controlled substance.

Should the passenger's motion to suppress the controlled substance be granted? Please provide a single video presentation that contains your response to the question from the first case above, followed by your response to this question.

wahidhaq

@
42 orders completed

ANSWER: Tutor has posted answer for $20.00. See answer's preview

$20.00

*************

***

intent ** **** ***** is ** ******* the ****** ** ******** rule ** the *** ********* given Thus *** author **** ******* *** ****** ** Suppress **** **** *** Scenarios given and ** **** ** explain *** ********** used ** the ****** ******* *** ** *** ****** which *** ****** **** ***** ****** ****** Furthermore *** ***** cases are ********** ** an indication to ******* *** evidence *** ***** citations ** *** ******** ****** Scenario

*****

***********

***

****** ******** while

*****************

in * ********** ******************* *********** ******* * ****** *** **** *** people ************* *** ** **** was a ***** ***** ***** *** ************** into *** passenger's ****** *** ******* *** passenger ** ************* **** the officers came close the ****** *** *** ***** start ******* ***** ******** 1 *** ** ********

***

****

**** * Individual ******* ********** ********* ****** *** *************** ****** to ******** the ******

********

** granted? *** ******* attorney ***** ******* ** *** judge that

***

****** ** ******** of *** totaled-almost *** grams ** ******* Assuming **** *** ****** officer has probable ***** ** search the passenger vehicle *** defense ***** use **** motion ** suppress ***** ** the ****** ******* ******** **** the car *** touched * bulge in the *************** ****** **** ****** the ****** ******* felt *** ***** **** objects ***** ** ******** ** ** rocks ** ***** ******* and **** ******* * ******* *** from *** ****** This ***** be ********** **** *** ****** ******* may have planted the ******** ** ********** ******** ** *** ********* to ********** *** ******** cause ** ****** **** ****** ****** * Muhammad (2006) ****** ****** Court of ******* Second ******* *** *** ***** The ****** ******* ******** cause **** be ********* ***** ***

*****

v Ohio and Mapp * **** *** ** *** ** *** **** * ***** 1081 (1961) ***** ******** *** protection under the Fourth Amendment ** *** ****** States Constitution ********* ** ****** ** ***** ******* ****** ****** and effects ******* ************ ******** *** *************** *** ***** with ******** ***** in **** **** ** ******* the duty was seized *** ******** ** *** ****** Amendment and ** ** whether *** ******* ******** passenger’s ****** Amendment rights The Fourth ********* protects “the ****** ******* ************ ******** *** *************** **** ****** ****** * **** (2006) United States ***** ** ******* Fourth Circuit *** ******* ***** *** ********* ** *** *** can **** an ***** for ***

*********

that *** taken into ******* and ***** **** the ****** ******** *** ***** ***** ******** **** *** ******* ***** they *** *** *** *** ********* ****** several ***** ** ***** ******* that ******** **** ******* rock ***** in *** passenger's clothing *** can be **** ** admissible ******* evidence ***** ***** ** ******* a ************** *********** ** showing **** ** ********** *** ******* *** also *** ******* ***** ******* ** an out ** ***** assertion ******* *** *** ******* ** ******* *** ***** ** *** ****** ******** **** ***** * ****** ****** ****** ******* ***** ** the ****** States *** ** 27 *** SCt 2038 150 ***** 94) ** *** *** ******** ** *** **** we can examiner ******* the

******

***************** ******* * ***** of ************* that was likely ** ******* or ****** ***** ********** quickly during ***** **** ** *** ********* ** ****** *** ********** the ******* ******** of ***** ** ***** ************** ** being *** ***************** (See United ****** * ****** 470 ** *** 686 *** *** 1568 ** ***** *** ****** The defense can ******** the driver *** ***** passenger to get their statement ** *** ******** **** ** **** and *********** **** the defense can ******* *** police ****** *** *********** **** story of *** ******* incident **** *** ********* Thus if *** defense ******* **** *** police ******** ******** *** ***************** ****** *** *** ********* *** ****** *** *** other ********* *** questioning *** ******* ** the ******** ***** ******** **** ** *** obtained **** ** ******** seizure then *** ******* *** file a ****** ** ******** *** ******** *** *** ***** *** ***** *** motion ** ******** ******** **** ******** * Pringle ****** ******* ***** of the ****** ****** *** US *** *** *** *** *** LEd2d ***** ******** * *** ** provided ** AIU 2015 **** 4 ********** ******* **********

*********

******

***

*************** ****** ** ******** the ********** substance ** ********* “On * routine patrol **

*******

******* * parked car *** people were ****** *** they were

* high ***** **** near * *** **** *** ***** *** **** activity” **** **** **** ** ***** does not ******* ******** ***** of *** person(s) being ******* ** *********** in the **** In *** **** officer had ********* *** too **** calls “from the *** for ********** **** ****** ** ****** ******************* **** 2015 **** ** which ** **** ********** ** *** defense ******* ** is *** *** ****** ******** and would be considered as ******** ********** ******* ********* **** ** ******* to see if the *********** were ********** a ***** ***** ** ***

****

** had **** ***** ************** **** **** **** 4) ***** ** irrelevant if ** ***** ** ********* **** probable ***** *** **** *** ******** ** relevant ** ** ***** tend to establish a fact of *** ***** *********** the ******* ****** ****** *** *** *** *********** *** *** **** *** ********* he ******** *** ********* fumbling **** ********* on the floorboard” **** **** **** ** ***** *** ****** officer has probable ***** to **** *** ********** While the ******* *** ******** *** ************** ** ******* **** *** * ****** ** *** ******* of the ***

****** **** **** ************ have *** weapons the officer let **** step *** **** the vehicle *********** which the *** seeks ** encourage ****** *********** **** ********** search and seizures ************ ******** **** for ******* *** officer ****** ** the area ***** ** observed the passenger ******** **** ********* to *** if ** *** hiding * ********** **** **** para ** ***** it is unnecessary ** ******* *** government’s ******** that the ******* ******* ***** ********** **** discovered ****** ** ********* ****** ** *** ******* ***** being ******** ********** officer **** he *** ******** **** **** for his safety *** ** **** **** **** nobody ***** *** *********** (AIU **** **** ** ***** ** ******** ***** *** ****** *** ******** ** *** ****** ******* *** ***** ********* *** ******* ******** * 12-pack ** **** on *** floorboard and checked ****** *** * *** When ** ***** *** carton ** found * small ***** underneath ** ********** * controlled ********** However the ***** **** ******** cause ** this **** ** whether *** **** was seized for ******** ** the ******

*********

*** if ** ******* *** ******* violated passenger’s ****** Amendment rights The ****** ********* ******** “the ****** ******* ************ ******** *** *************** (See United ****** * **** ****** ****** ****** ***** of ******* ****** ******* *** FedAppx ***** **** ***** ******* ************* * *********** ******* by ****** ******** ** ** **** **** ***** ****** ***** **** ****** ***** lawful

** * ******* **** *** be reasonable ***** the Fourth ********* **** ******** v New ********* 403 ** *** ** *** 2022 ** ***** *** (1971)) *** ******* *** have * ****** ** suppress evidence granted based ********* * ***** ******* ***** ** *** ****** ****** ****** *** ** *** *** *** **** ** ***** *** *** ********** *** ** **** *** SCt **** 89 ***** 912 ****** ** *** ******* ******** ** ** ****** ******* **** “plain view” ******** *** be ******* **** *** ****** ******* have **** **** ******** cause ** ******* that the 12-pack ** **** *** *** ***** baggy ********** ** ********** a ********** substance ** question is ******** ** * ***** ** ** contraband Therefore ** Mincey * ******* *** ** 385 ** SCt **** 57 Led2d 290 ****** **** a warrantless ****** **** ** ********

*************

** *** ********** which justify *** ************ ***** *** ****** ******* has ***** upon *** ** ******* ** conduct * search ***** ******** *** ********** ********* ********* *** ******** derived **** *** ******* ** be ******** *** a ****** ** ******** ** ******** *********** Motion ** suppress *** ** ******** ****** ******* ** ***** ** a ***** *** ****** ******** ** **** **** ****** ** ******

**************

abuse

*********

** ********* *** ****** ********* rights ** *** US ************ ** ***** ******** ***** with ** ******* ************ ****** *** ******* ** *** ******** Hearsay ** ******* ** ** out-of ***** statement ******* to prove *** ***** ** the ****** ******** in that ********** ******* *** defense of ********** ******* ** *** ****** **** *********** *** inducing *** ********* ** ****** a ***** ** **** ******* ******** ** the defendant to

**********

its probable cause ****** **** ** inadmissible ** ***** *** * ****** ** suppress *** ******** *** be granted ********* if *** police officers ***** have used ******* ** ************* the ********* ****** under *** Fourth Amendment and ***** the **** evidence rule **** ** *** **** **** ********* ** ** relevant *** * ****** ** ******** ***** ** ***** and *** *******

Click here to download attached files: Suppression.docx

or Buy custom answer