Week five assignment 1

Week five assignment

Brandy L Mingus

Upper Iowa University

Week five assignment 2

Legal Issue #1: Did the special agents have the authority to conduct a search of the

house?

References:

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)

Analysis:

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from

unreasonable searches and seizures and requires that search warrants be supported by

probable cause. In this scenario, the special agents obtained a search warrant for the

crack house based on the tip provided by a reliable source. The warrant listed the

address and specified the items to be searched for. As a result, the agents had legal

authority to conduct a search of the premises.

Additionally, when the two males entered the house carrying a small package, there was

reasonable suspicion to believe that illegal activity was taking place, justifying a limited

investigative detention. The agents waited for an hour, allowing time for the suspects to

get comfortable enough to begin cutting the cocaine before executing the raid. The

actions of the agents align with the principles established in Terry v. Ohio, which allow

for limited stops and searches based on reasonable suspicion.

They conducted the entry into the house and the subsequent search under the Fourth

Amendment and established legal principles. Therefore, the special agents had the

authority to conduct the search.

Week five assignment 3
Legal Issue #2: Can any evidence that you uncovered be used at trial?

References:

Exclusionary Rule
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
Independent Source Doctrine
Inevitable Discovery Doctrine

Analysis:

The evidence uncovered during the search includes cash, weapons, and well over 50

kilos of cocaine. The initial search was conducted with a valid search warrant, providing

legal justification for the seizure of evidence. However, the suspect who fled the scene

and entered the apartment was pursued without a warrant.

The court will consider whether the pursuit and entry into the apartment were lawful to

determine the admissibility of evidence. The suspect's flight, armed resistance, and

entry into a residence may provide exigent circumstances justifying the pursuit without,

a warrant. The agents' actions in pursuing the suspect were likely reasonable under the

circumstances.

However, the evidence found in the walk-in closet might be subject to scrutiny, as it was

not within the scope of the original search warrant. The legal doctrines that may come

into play include the Independent Source Doctrine and the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine,

which allow for the admission of evidence if it can be shown that legal means have

discovered it.

It is important to assess whether the woman's discovery and the additional evidence

were independent of the unlawful pursuit and entry. If the agents had inevitably
Week five assignment 4
discovered the evidence through, we can show lawful means, it may still be admissible.

However, if the evidence is deemed a direct result of the unlawful actions, it might be

subject to suppression under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine.

In conclusion, the admissibility of the evidence found in the walk-in closet may depend

on the court's assessment of the lawfulness of the pursuit and entry, as well as the

application of legal doctrines such as the Independent Source Doctrine and the

Inevitable Discovery Doctrine.