Illegal Seizure
This is an excerpt from the paper...
The best argument in favor of suppressing the signaling device is that the officer recovered it as the result of an illegal "seizure" of Al in front of the museum. Since the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to seize Al at that point, all evidence obtained after that encounter is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" and inadmissible against Al. Regardless of how it was obtained, this evidence may be used against the other defendants, who do not have standing to challenge evidence seized from others, even if illegally obtained.This stop constitutes a seizure according to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Terry v. Ohio (1968), which defined a seizure as occurring when an officer "has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen." This restraint can be by physical force or by show of authority. Here, the officer approached Al in her police car. She directed her flashlight at him in a clear show of authority and she interrogated Al ("What's going on here?"). A reasonable person in Al's situation would have perceived that they were not free to leave, thus creating a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes. For the signaling device to be admissible against Al, that seizure had to be lawful, which means Ann had to have a reasonable suspicion that Al was engaged in or had engaged in criminal activity. Merely standing on a street corner does not give rise to reasonable suspicion, as the Court held in Brown v. Texas (1979). In that case, the pol
. . .
be approved by detached magistrate.
Since the police lacked such a warrant, the defense will argue that the evidence should not be admitted. Only George and John have standing to challenge this evidence, which can be admitted against any other defendant regardless of how obtained.
Evidence seized in a warrantless search may still be admitted if one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement applies. The prosecutor will argue that the evidence is admissible an exception. The only exceptions that could apply are the "hot pursuit" exception and the "plain view" exception.
The hot pursuit exception requires the police, before entering the premises, to have probable cause that the person they are pursuing committed a serious crime, that the person is present, and that the suspect will escape or evidence will be destroyed. The prosecutor will argue that they had probable cause because the occupants matched Ace's description, that the beeper led them to this area, and that the pursuit had been continuous from the moment Ann and Ace stumbled upon the crime.
The plain view exception admits evidence that the police discover in the open while lawfully on the premises. Thus, the police had probable cause to believe the suspects
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Governor Ryan's, Al Ann, Al Regardless, Ann Ace, George John, Governor Ryan, Supreme Court, Detective Sharp's, Sharp I've, Miranda Arizona, capital punishment, death penalty, probable cause, probable cause search, cause search, miranda warnings, reasonable suspicion, prosecutor counter, prosecutor argue, evidence seized, plain view, fruit poisonous tree, criminal justice system, ann tackled al, al's statement ann,
Approximate Word count = 2717
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Illegal Seizure
|