POLS 4720 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Miranda Warning
5 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
In this situation, Berry knowingly and intelligently gave consent to the officer to enter
the room. However, any person would believe that he was not free to leave once in the
dorm room (2). Berry was in custody and the officer questioned him of why he stole the
muffin which elicits incriminating responses. Because he was both in custody and was
questioned, he needed to be read his Miranda rights before proceeding.
-When Silk took pictures of the phone and forwarded the group chat to the UGA police,
under Riley v California, digital data stored on cell phone cannot be used as a weapon to
har a arrestig offier or to effetuate the arrest’s esape. A arrat is eeded to
seize the information of the cell phone. Any reasonable person would not believe that
the officers would not forward the group chat and take photos when the police merely
asked to view the groupchat.
10. Peter Green
-The officer had authority to stop Green under Terry v Ohio (#4). He has reasonable
suspicion for the stop which was that the Green matched the description of the suspect.
Under Terry v Ohio, in the second prong, the officer can frisk someone if they have
reason to believe they are armed. And their search is limited to that which is necessary
for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer. However, any
reasonable person would not believe that a student walking on campus is armed and
dangerous. Therefore, the frisk was not valid under Terry v Ohio and was a violation. In
the separate situation of if the frisk was valid, Officer Jones was allowed to pull out the
bag of arijuaa fro Gree’s poket. Uder Miesota Dikerso, if the offier a
determine immediately that it is contraband, he can seize it under plain feel. Because
the frisk was a violation, the discovery of marijuana is inadmissible. Also, in the aspect of
searhig Gree’s ag iidet to arrest. That as alloed eause uder Chiel #4
11. Vehicle/Samantha Bacon
-The police stopped the vehicle under reasonable suspicion that the vehicle matched
the description of the report. This stop is allowed under Terry v Ohio (#4) The officer
asked the white female in the back seat to step out which is allowed under Penn v
Mimms. When the employee who reported the crime identified the female backseat
passenger as the one who committed the crime, the officer searched the vehicle for the
stolen chicken biscuit. In the issue of identification, this identification was accurate
because the length of time was soon after the report, there were no distractions, the
focus on the employee was clear, and there was no stress on the employee. In the
search of the vehicle, under Chambers v Maroney, Justice White stated that if there is
probable cause, an automobile, because of its mobility, may be searched without a
warrant. Also, under California v Acevedo, the police may conduct a warrantless search
of a container, the backpack, within a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe that
the container holds evidence. For the issue of the laptop, the officer unlawfully searched
and seized the laptop. In order for something to be seized in plain view, the officer must
not violate the Fourth to be in the place where the object can be viewed, the
incriminating character of the object must be immediately apparent, and the officer
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
In this situation, berry knowingly and intelligently gave consent to the officer to enter the room. However, any person would believe that he was not free to leave once in the dorm room (2). Berry was in custody and the officer questioned him of why he stole the muffin which elicits incriminating responses. Because he was both in custody and was questioned, he needed to be read his miranda rights before proceeding. A (cid:449)arra(cid:374)t is (cid:374)eeded to seize the information of the cell phone. Any reasonable person would not believe that the officers would not forward the group chat and take photos when the police merely asked to view the groupchat: peter green. The officer had authority to stop green under terry v ohio (#4). He has reasonable suspicion for the stop which was that the green matched the description of the suspect.
