Did adequate consent for the officer to enter the house

Assignment: Final ProjectYou are required to think outside the box on this case. Make an argument as to why the evidence, in this case, should be thrown out. Additionally, make an argument as to why the evidence should be admitted.

Be sure to use case law to support your argument.

Read this scenario and answer the questions below. Please give an evaluative answer.

On September 18, 2017, around 0830 hours, Officer Johnson of the Yorktown Police Department was dispatched to 123 Broadway Ave, Apartment 7A, the residence of the defendant Kevin Emanuel ("Emanuel"). Upon arriving at the residence, Officer Johnson met Sara, the seventeen-year-old daughter of Emanuel, outside of the apartment.

Sara informed Officer Johnson that Emanuel woke her up around noon and was mad because she had not cleaned her room. Emanuel beat Sara with a belt and a shoe. Officer Johnson observed that Sara had several areas where the skin was broken on her arms. Officer Johnson contacted Detective Singh, of the Criminal Investigations Division, for assistance and to take photographs of Sara.

While waiting for Detective Singh to arrive, Sara walked into the apartment and returned with three pictures. Sara stated: "This is what my father does, praise his money." The pictures depicted cash, apparently, stacks of $100's, $50's, $10's and $5's, spread out on a bed. Officer Johnson asked Sara what her father did for a living and she replied that she didn't know.

Detective Singh arrived and found Officer Johnson and two other officers standing outside the apartment with Sara. Detective Singh asked Sara if he could photograph her injuries and if they could go inside the apartment to take the photographs. Sara said that her father was not present; however, the officers sensed that Sara seemed hesitant when the officers asked to enter the apartment to photograph her injuries. Detective Singh specifically asked Sara if her father was still in the apartment and Sara stated that he was not. When asked, what her father drove, Sara stated she did not know. Sara then stated that she was afraid of her father and appeared to be protecting him from the police. With the officers' urging, Sara opened the door of the apartment and let the officer's in the apartment.

Detective Singh noticed welts on Sara's arms, legs, and neck resulting from a recent attack. The marks on her body had a pattern to them and Officer Roberts asked with what was she hit. Sara replied that she had been hit with a belt and possibly the buckle as well as a shoe.

Officer Johnson spoke to Sara about the belt and shoe and Sara walked to Emanuel's bedroom, opened the bedroom door, and went inside. Officer Johnson followed. Sara gathered up two belts and a sandle that were on the floor and placed them on the bed. Detective Singh followed to get a better look at the items.

While inside the bedroom, Detective Singh noticed that the closet and bathroom doors were closed. Detective Singh believed "that it was in the best interest of safety to search the areas behind the doors for Emanuel, stating that his concern for the safety of his officers was heightened after Sara was evasive in giving information about her father's whereabouts."

In his report, Officer Roberts wrote the following:

Upon opening the closet door, I immediately inspected the visible area. During inspection, I noticed two cases of ammunition and one green metal army ammo case on the floor. Scanning the closet, I noticed a partially opened black duffle bag that was standing upright in the back left corner.

Focusing my attention on the opening of the bag, I observed what appeared to be the front sights of common to assault rifles. Without moving or manipulating any items in the closet, I leaned in to take a closer look, observing metal barrels, wooden stocks, and "banana" style magazines.

Upon finding these items, Detective Singh informed all present of the items and announced that he needed to call a supervisor due to the seriousness of the situation.

Captain Morgan arrived and decided that the weapons should be removed from the residence. Also, the officers determined that Emanuel had been previously convicted of a felony involving domestic violence and was in illegal possession of the firearms as a prohibited person under Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(9).

Prior to trial, the defense counsel for Emanuel moved to suppress the firearms and ammunition that were seized from his apartment. Discuss the legal principles that would apply to this motion to suppress and how the court should rule. Considerations include:

1. What crime(s) did the officers have probable cause to believe that Emanuel committed prior to finding the weapons? What evidence supports that probable cause?

2. Did Sara provide adequate consent for the officer's to enter the house?

3. What probable cause did the officers have to justify a protective sweep? Was the protective sweep reasonable?

4. Discuss the plain view doctrine as it pertains to this scenario? Was it "immediately apparent" that the weapons seized were a violation of the law?

5. Discuss the exclusionary rule as it pertains to this case? What evidence is questionable from a reasonableness point of view. Should the trial court exclude any evidence? Why or why not? What evidence, if any, should be excluded?

Please be sure to validate your opinions and ideas with citations and references in APA format.

Solution Preview :

Prepared by a verified Expert
Business Law and Ethics: Did adequate consent for the officer to enter the house
Reference No:- TGS02972477

Now Priced at $35 (50% Discount)

Recommended (95%)

Rated (4.7/5)