Land Mark Supreme Court Cases Assignment

Objective Identify problems commonly associated with the enforcement of criminal laws. Understand the impact of Judicial Decisions on law enforcement.

Instructions Research your assigned supreme court case Content: Details Surround the case (place, situation, people involved, what happened?) Ruling of Law (what did the court decide on the case? What judicial decision was made?) Which way did the court rule? (with the state? Defendant? Why?) Record your findings in your Journal Your group will explain your case on the next class day, and the class will take notes on your given case. THIS INFORMATION WILL BE ON AN UP COMING TEST!!!!!

Draper v. U.S. Case Details: -Without a warrant, a federal narcotics agent (agent) arrested the Petitioner, Draper (Petitioner), as he disembarked a train. Probable cause for the arrest was based on an informant’s tip, which was corroborated with an accurate, predictive description of the facts surrounding the Petitioner’s return. Ruling of Law: -Probable cause exists where the known facts and circumstances would cause a reasonable person to believe that an offense had been, or is being, committed. Which way did the court rule? -With The State Yes. The informant’s past reliability, accurate description of the Petitioner’s clothing, bag, and date of arrival gave the agent probable cause to arrest the Petitioner without a warrant.

Draper v. U.S. Reliable and factual description of illegal activity is probable cause for an arrest without a warrant

Aguilar v. Texas Case Details: Houston police officers applied for a search warrant to look for narcotics in the home of Nick Alford Aguilar. In support of their search warrant application, officers submitted affidavits explaining that they had received information from a confidential informant, not named in the application, which they believed to be reliable. The warrant was issued and police went to Aguilar’s residence to conduct the search Ruling of Law: -Aguilar was convicted, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. Which way did the court rule? With The State Aguilar’s convictions was held. It was rule the evidence for a search warrant can be “hear say” and the police don’t actually have to see physical evidence. So long as the source is reliable and credible, which is determined by the magistrate.

Aguilar v. Texas Evidence in a search warrant can be “hearsay” so long as the source of information is reliable and credible.

Chimel v. California Case Details: -The defendant, Chimel was arrested inside his home and police asked him for consent to search the home. The defendant refused the request. The police proceeded nonetheless, incident to the lawful arrest and searched in different rooms. The police also had the defendant’s wife open various dresser drawers and remove their contents. Ruling of Law a search of any area beyond the arrestee’s immediate control, is unlawful under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution unless there is a clear danger that evidence may be destroyed or concealed or there is an imminent threat of harm to the arresting officers. Which way did the court rule? With Chimel Any search in an arrestee’s home beyond arrestee’s person and the area within his immediate control is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution

Chimel v. California Any search beyond an arrestee's person and his immediate control is unreasonable without a warrant or probable cause.

Escobedo v. Illinois Case Details: -The petitioner Danny Escobedo asked to speak with his lawyer while in police custody but before being formally charged and was denied. Ruling of Law: -Not allowing someone to speak with an attorney, and not advising them of their right to remain silent after they have been arrested and before they have been interrogated is a denial of assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Which way did the court rule? -With Escobedo the police investigation focused on the accused as a suspect rather than a less specific investigation, refusing to allow an accused to speak with his attorney is a denial of this Sixth Amendment right. The incriminating statements he made must thus not be admitted into evidence.

Escobedo v. Illinois A suspect of an investigation has the right to speak to their attorney before answering any questions.

Miranda v. Arizona Case Details: The defendants offered incriminating evidence during police interrogations without prior notification of their rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Ruling of Law: -Government authorities need to inform individuals of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights prior to an interrogation following an arrest. Which way did the court rule? -With Miranda -Without this notification, anything admitted by an arrestee in an interrogation will not be admissible in court

Miranda v. Arizona With out notification of an arrestee's rights, anything they say cannot be used against them in court.