Response 1 530 | Criminal homework help

100 word response 1 reference Due 9/1/2023

McCorkle

1. The arrest of Sally violated the law in many ways. She was not arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor because the police lacked sufficient cause to make the arrest. They just observed two people holding a child, and Sally did not seem to do anything inappropriate in their eyes. The police need to have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed a crime before they may publicly make an arrest of that individual. A warrant is required for the police to make an arrest inside of a private residence, unless the situation warrants immediate action. In this instance, there were no life-threatening emergencies, and as a result, the authorities required a warrant to arrest Sally inside of her house.
Payton v. New York (1980) and Chimel v. California (1969) are the cases that are applicable to this set of facts and circumstances. In the case of Payton, the Supreme Court decided that the police cannot conduct a warrantless arrest in a private residence unless there are very compelling reasons to do so. The Supreme Court decided in the case of Chimel that the only time a warrantless search of a residence is legal is when it is carried out as part of a valid arrest.

 2. It was against the law to go through Joe’s waste. The police did not have a warrant to look through his waste, and there were not any extenuating circumstances that would have warranted such a search in the absence of a warrant. It was not possible for the cops to see what was in the rubbish, and they did not have permission to examine it.
California v. Greenwood (1988) is the case that is applicable to this particular set of facts. The Supreme Court decided in the case of Greenwood that the Fourth Amendment does not protect the contents of garbage cans that have been left out in public areas for the purpose of being collected. On the other hand, the Court ruled that the police are not allowed to inspect a person’s garbage while they are still present in their house.

3. I would propose that my team conduct the following investigation procedures in order to develop adequate probable cause to get a search warrant. These processes are as follows:
Perform a covert investigation at the house of Perpetrator A. This might involve keeping an eye out for unusual activity around the residence, such as an unusually high number of visitors or delivery people.
Conduct interviews with the perpetrator A’s acquaintances and neighbours. It’s possible that this will provide details concerning the illegal conduct of Perpetrator A.
Collect the financial records of the perpetrator identified as A. This might be evidence that the money is being spent in a manner that is compatible with drug trafficking on the part of Perpetrator A.
Purchase medications from Perpetrator A in a carefully monitored transaction. This would give direct proof that the offender, Perpetrator A, was involved in narcotics trafficking.
I am seeking for evidence of the kind that would create probable cause to think that Perpetrator A is involved in fentanyl trafficking. This is the sort of proof that I am searching for. This might include indications of drug selling, such as huge quantities of cash, drug paraphernalia, or drug residue on a surface. It is also possible that it will contain proof of the participation of Perpetrator A in a drug trafficking organization