Legal Memorandum (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Constitutionality of Warrantless Search and Seizure Operatio
Pretoria Student Law Review, 2020
This research will thus consider whether or not section 22 of CPA is inconsistent with the spirit, purport and object of the Constitution. To provide a brief overview of this paper; the introduction will illuminate the aim of the research followed by an examination of what constitutes ‘search’ and ‘seizure’ in terms of CPA. The paper will thereafter consider the existing jurisprudence on search and seizure operations and elucidate the manner in which search and seizure operations affect certain rights in the Bill of Rights. An examination of search and seizure operations under Canadian law will be conducted with the paper culminating in a conclusion containing recommendations regarding the enforcement of search and seizure operations.
2006
This article begins by attempting to understand sniff search jurisprudence through the earliest Supreme Court precedent and the application of those cases by the various circuits. Then after a brief discussion of the Caballes case itself it attempts to discern the various arguments made by the parties in the suit, scholars, and practitioners, examining each for its relative merit. Finally, the article attempts to predict what impact Caballes will have on both the use of canines in law enforcement and other technologies that serve similar purposes
Supreme Court Decision Advanced Legal Studies
Court Decision Griffin & Lilly, 2016
This case was originally assigned to the Rhode Island Federal District Court of Criminal Appeals; where on January 16, 2015, Judge Woodstock dismissed Appellant’s Motion to Suppress. The Appellant, Peter Griffin, (“hereinafter, Appellant”) was convicted of two counts of production of obscene materials containing child pornography, the depiction of obscene material of a person under 17 years of age, in violation of § 18 U.S.C. § 2252- Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors (Possession, distribution and receipt of child pornography)18 U.S.C. § 2252A- certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography. Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his Motion to Suppress on the grounds that Appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when police conducted a warrantless search of his premise/apartment without his consent.
Private Papers Now Subject to Reasonable Search and Seizure-Andresen v. Maryland
DePaul L. Rev., 1976
Since 1967, federal courts have been in conflict over the question whether a defendant's private papers are, by their very nature, within the scope of the protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment.' A recent Supreme Court decision purportedly answers this question. 2 In Andresen v. Maryland, 3 the Court held that the seizure of a person's business records, pursuant to a valid search warrant, and their subsequent introduction at trial did not violate the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.' The Court deemed the privilege inapplicable because testimony is not compelled in the case of a seizure of papers pursuant to a valid search warrant. By indicating that this was the constitutionally significant distinction between this case and earlier Supreme Court cases involving subpoenas of "private papers," '5 the Court apparently decided that all items of evidence, whatever their nature, may be seized pursuant to a valid search warrant. Andresen, an attorney specializing in real estate settlements, came under scrutiny during an investigation of real estate settlement activities in the Washington, D.C., area.' Search warrants were obtained