CASE ANALYSIS

CRM 123- Case Analysis 3 Fact Patterns

Name:

Course:

Professor:

Institution:

Date:
CASE ANALYSIS 1

Kurt

The central matter in this case is if Saint Leo Police Department and

Officer Vidal desecrated procedural due course through passing a new noise decree and

attaining a warrant of arrest was unconstitutional?

This is a due process case. Due course exists in the 4th Amendment, “the

right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against

unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrant shall issue, but

upon probable cause” (p. 289). The pertinent description here is liberty, “covers a vast

scope of personal rights. It also implies the absence of arbitrary and unreasonable

governmental restraints on an individual’s person” (p. 24).

The due procedure pledge protects individuals from injustice procedure of

both substantive and procedural law. “Substantive law refers to the law that creates,

define, and regulate rights. It define the legal relationship between the individual and the

state and among individual themselves and is the primary responsibility of the legislative

branch of government” (p. 24).

Article 1, Section 9 and 10 of the Constitution forbids state and federal

legislative bodies from ordaining ex post facto rules, “laws that make acts criminal that

were not criminal at the time they were committed” (p.256).

The Court clarified this in the similar case of Tyler G. McNeely vs.

Missouri and conformed that, “in drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of

alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to

justify conducting a blood test without a warrant” (p. 292).

CASE ANALYSIS 2

Since the police department of Saint Leo generated a different noise

ordinance after Kurt had played lurid music the night afore doesn’t establish the authority

for Officer Vidal to acquire a warrant of arrest for the accused. While Officer Vidal has a

warrant for Kurt’s apprehension, it doesn’t provide him the right to go into Kurt’s

household with lack of consent nor invade his dining and sitting room. The warrant

explicitly designated who or what Officer Vidal were to examine or take hold of, and it

did not cover the proscribed drugs which were revealed as a result of the unlawful

entrance into the house of the suspect. Conducting an unlawful examination of the

occupant is a desecration of that individual’s freedom and the Fourth Amendment right of

irrational examine and seize. Because Office Vidal did not have plausible basis or a

binding warrant to examine Kurt’s household, the evidence that he took would be

precluded at hearing.

The court thereby rules in the favor of Kurt in this case.

CASE ANALYSIS 3

State v. Ana; State v. Summer

The focal issue in this case is whether Ana and Summer should be indicted for

the criminality of burglary?

The 5th Amendment affords in pertinent parts that, “no person shall be held to

answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment

of a Grand Jury” and “no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness

against himself” (Constitution, 2017). The pertinent descriptions here is explicit i.e.

Intent crime, “proof of the commission of an actus reus, plus a specified level of

knowledge or an additional intent,” (p. 263) and irresistible-impulse test, “a defendant is

not guilty if he or she knows that an act is wrong and is aware of the nature and quality of

the act, but cannot refrain from committing the act” (P. 277).

The leading charge that I deliberated for Ana and Summer was that of a felony

charge, but then again after evaluation of the facts that was not the factual one, so I

indicted Ana and Summer with a misdemeanor for the reason that neither Ana or Summer

committed a unlawful act, albeit Ana had the resolve to commit one but did not

accomplish her plans. The second charge was solicitation for Ana, although that charge

was terminated since Ana did not implore Summer to assist her with raiding the bank;

instead Summer volunteered. I likewise charged Ana and Summer with conspiracy,

although I didn’t lay off this charge because it seem the suitable charge.

The court deliberated the incident of State v. Gordon and resolved that,

“defendant was indifferent should the owner, Prout, never have back his automobile and,
CASE ANALYSIS 4

therefore, had specific intent that the owner be deprived permanently of his property” (p.

265).

Since Ana and Summer did not carry out a crime, although had the intent to

commit a criminal act, they have be charged with the crime of conspiracy. The proof

which the police officer salvaged from Ana didn’t belong to her and the officer has to

corroborate beyond a reasonable uncertainty that the merchandise belonged to Ana and

Summer. I trust that the judge will approve with my verdict regarding this case and

charge Ana and Summer with a transgression, however Ana will have an supplementary

charge of attempted pilfering and both ought to be charged with conspiracy.

Attributable to the grievance of somebody donning a suspicious mask in the bank

and the lost duffel bag, I have confidence that there was credible cause to search through

and apprehend Summer and Ana. Even though Summer was just the driver in the

incident, she was cognizant of the strategy of action and still abetted Ana get to the bank

and agreed to be her escape driver. Consequently, she is just as guilty in the committed

delinquency as Summer is. The potential charge of armed robbery ought to be dismissed

for the reason that the gun wasn’t their weapon, nor did Ana have the resolve of using the

armament in the attempted robbery.

The court rules in favor of the State that both women should be charged with

attempted robbery, conversely, the court rules in favor of the both women on terminating

the intent of an armed robbery.

CASE ANALYSIS 5

Jason

The main issue in this case is whether Officer Leah desecrated Jason Fourth and

Fifth Amendments rights?

This is a due process case. Procedural due process is in the 5th Amendment and

the 4th Amendment, “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due

process of the law,” and “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”

(Constitution, 2017). The due process guarantee safeguards individuals from inequity in

the procedure of both substantive and procedural law, “Procedural law prescribes the

method, used to enforce legal rights. It provides the machinery by which individuals can

enforce their rights or obtain redress for the invasions of such rights” (p.24). The relevant

delineation here is property, “is everything that may be subject to ownership, including

real and personal property” (p. 24).

The court scrutinized this issue in the caser of Draper v. United States 348 U.S.

307 stating that, “we believe that, under the facts and circumstances here, Marsh had

probable cause and reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner was committing a

violation of the laws of the United States relating to narcotic drugs at the time he arrested

him. The arrest was therefore lawful, and the subsequent search and seizure, having been

made incident to that lawful arrest, were likewise valid. It follows that petitioner’s motion

to suppress was properly denied and that the seized heroin was competent evidence

lawfully received at the trial” (p. 281).

CASE ANALYSIS 6

Office Leah had credible cause and a reasonable suspicion to go into the home of

Jason since the department was in the hunt for a stolen monkey, and she saw a monkey in

the living room of Jason’s household. The judge will rule to subdue the evidence of the

stolen monkey as Jason’s lawyer had delivered proof that Jason purchased the monkey

last year. Nevertheless, Jason will be charged with proprietorship of a controlled

substance since he had ownership of the marijuana in his home and may have anticipated

to peddle, which is a specific-intent crime. If Jason anticipated to peddle the drugs, he

was posing a menace to the general public and for that reason, will be charged with a

stringent liability crime (p. 266). I would charge Jason with the ownership of a controlled

substance with the resolve to peddle, which is a felony charge and I would dismiss the

charges of burglary as he had evidence of purchasing the monkey. Officer had reasonable

cause to knock on Jason’s door questioning regarding the monkey in his home. Leah’s

actions was appropriate because she had a realistic doubt that the monkey she had seen

was the one testified as stolen and upon arriving the home, she revealed the marijuana.

The Plain View Doctrine permitted Leah to take hold of the marijuana since it was in

plain view and she had credible cause to be certain that the marijuana was linked to a

crime. Therefore, her actions was defensible.

The court rules in support of Jason for the case of stealing the monkey. However,

the court rules in support of the State for the marijuana charge.
CASE ANALYSIS 7

Reference

Schubert, F. A. (2019). Introduction to Law and the Legal System. Cengage Learning:

Boston, MA

Constitution of the United States (March 12, 2017). Amendments. Congress of the United

States. https://constitutionus.com/#constitution