Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
A on June 3, 2005, and that Mr. A is in possession of the additional items taken as proceeds of the robbery. The proceeds are located in the bedroom at Mr. a's home, located at 678 Oak Street, Collingswood.
That based upon the above, I believe there exists probable cause to believe there are presently jewelry, and evidence of their possession, in the home of Mr. a, 678 Oak Street, Collingswood, which are evidence of the fruits and instrumentalities of violations of Texas Penal Code, Chapter 26, Section 29.03(2) and, Chapter 26, Section 31.03(5). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
John Smith
Detective
Collingswood Police Department
SUBSCRIBED & SWORN to before me on this ____ day of
Superior Court Judge
TIME:
Bibliography
Hall, Kermit L. And David Scott Clark. (2002). Oxford Companion to American...
...
Supreme Court of the United States. (June 10, 1968). John W. Terry, Petitioner, v. State of Ohio. 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968.
Supreme Court of the United States. (June 21, 1990). Illinois v. Rodriguez. 497 U.S. 177, 110 S. Ct. 2793.
Supreme Court of the United States. (June 8, 1983). Illinois v. Gates. 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
Supreme Court of the United States. (1963). Wong Sun v U.S. 371 U.S. 471 (1963).
Supreme Court of the United States. June 10, 1968. John W. Terry, Petitioner, v. State of Ohio. 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968.
Supreme Court of the United States. (1963). Wong Sun v U.S. 371 U.S. 471 (1963).
Supreme Court of the United States. (June 8, 1983). Illinois v. Gates. 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
Hall, Kermit L. And David Scott Clark. (2002). Oxford Companion…
Bibliography
Hall, Kermit L. And David Scott Clark. (2002). Oxford Companion to American Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Supreme Court of the United States. (June 10, 1968). John W. Terry, Petitioner, v. State of Ohio. 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968.
Supreme Court of the United States. (June 21, 1990). Illinois v. Rodriguez. 497 U.S. 177, 110 S. Ct. 2793.
Supreme Court of the United States. (June 8, 1983). Illinois v. Gates. 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
arrest warrant and a search warrant. An arrest warrant pertains to the arrest and detention of a particular person based on what crimes the person has allegedly committed. Evidence is necessary to procure a search warrant. However, once it is procured, the person can be arrested when found and whatever property they have on their person and the car they are driving in would be subject to impound and/or retention. A
This is true because of the following: Computer storage devices (hard disks, diskettes, tape, and removable drives) can store the equivalent of thousands or millions of pages of information. When users desire to conceal criminal evidence, they often store the information in random order with deceptive file names. Directories and subdirectories that contain these files can also be electronically hidden from normal view. Special forensic software is required to
Right's residential property. Mr. Sight can still be held and charged on any evidence taken directly from his person, but not from the evidence secured from his private residence. Reasons Although the K-9 team alerted to the presence of drugs in Mr. Right's residence, his dwelling was not in the content of the initial warrant. There was no mentioning of anything to do with Mr. Right's residence, nor any suspicion to
It also established that so long as a person can expect that their conversation or actions take place in private, they are protected by the Fourth Amendment search and seizure laws relative to surveillance as well as their property (Kitch, 1968). This is important because it shows that even though this case took place in the late 1960's, the new technologies that are making their way to the open
Arrests An officer of the law has a great deal of power, and it is helpful for civilians to know what rights they have when approached or stopped by an officer. It is also important to understand the difference between being stopped and being arrested. Individuals should also be aware of the laws regarding search and seizure of property. Generally, an officer of the law is permitted to stop a person
Further, these writs, once issued, could be reused, and did not expire until the death of the reigning monarch (Knappman, 33). In Massachusetts, a group of colonial merchants, represented by James Otis, petitioned the Superior Court to refuse any new applications of writ following the death of George II. Otis, using the phrase "A man's house is his castle," argued in the case that the writs were a direct violation