Relevant Legal Concepts

Main Issue: Did the police officer follow the right procedure to arrest Kurt? Did the officer infringe on Kurt’s privacy rights by entering his house without a search warrant?

Schubert (2000) states, “If police officers intend to make a routine felony arrest in a suspect’s home, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the U.S. Constitution as requiring that the officers first obtain an arrest warrant. An arrest warrant is an order issued by a judge, magistrate, or other judicial officer commanding the arresting officer to take an individual into custody and to bring the person before the court to answer criminal charges. Before the court will issue a warrant, a complaint containing the name of the accused, or a description of the accused, must be filed. The complaint must be supported by affidavits and contain a description of the offense and the surrounding circumstances” (p. 340).

Relevant Case Law: In Weeks v. United States, the police entered Weeks’ home without a warrant. In a unanimous decision, the U. S ruled that the seizure of items without a warrant from a private resident violates constitutional rights (p. 344).

Rationale: The police officer did not obtain a search warrant to enter Kurt’s home. The officer violated Kurt’s privacy rights by entering his house to wait for him and even went to his refrigerator to look for a drink.

Ruling: The Court should rule in support of Kurt.

Case 2: State v. Ana; Stave v. Summer

Main Issue: Should the prosecution charge Summer and Ana with bank robbery?

Relevant Legal Concepts: To be charged with a crime, there must be criminal intent (mens rea). In this case, Ana and Summer had criminal intent to commit a bank robbery.

Relevant Case Law: In State v. Gordon, the prosecution charged Gordon with robbery. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the defendant’s actions demonstrated intent to keep the vehicle (p. 264).

Rationale: Ana and Summer demonstrated intent to commit a bank robbery. Ana entered the bank wearing a face mask while carrying a duffel bag. On the other hand, Summer took Ana to the bank, knowing very well that she would rob the bank. She even waited for Ana outside. However, Ana did not complete the robbery and took another duffel bag.

Ruling: The prosecution should charge Ana and Summer with robbery. The defendants had a criminal intention to rob a bank, although they ended up robbing an individual.

Case 3

Main Issue: Did the police officer have probable cause to enter Jason’s home and arrest him? Should the prosecution charge Jason with marijuana possession?

Relevant Legal Concepts: Police officers must obtain a warrant before making any search and seizure, and “the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause for searches and seizures” (p. 285)

Relevant Case Law: The court addressed search warrant exemptions in Missouri v. Tyler G. McNeely. The court stated, “One well-organized exception applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of the law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment” (p. 289). These circumstances include property protection (i.e., extinguishing fire), life protection (i.e., offering first aid), or preventing evidence destruction. None of these circumstances were evident in the case at hand.

Rationale: The police did not have reasonable cause to enter Jason’s house and arrest him. Further, the officer did not have a warrant to enter the house. The marijuana was discovered under a warrantless search and seizure.

Ruling: The Court should rule in support of Jason.

References

Schubert, F. A. (2000). In Introduction to law and the legal system (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.