Scenario # 1. Officers went to Carol's place of business and searched her desk and drawers in her office. They found contraband and decided to go to her home to continue the search.*

____Officers represent the Government who has the 'power' to search any person, place or thing

____Carol has no individual rights against search and seizure at her job

_____The home is an extension of your place of employment

What if Carol has some of the property from the workplace at home - the Government can continue to search

A warrant is not necessary for the workplace because individuals do not have any rights at work

The Government must protect society from criminals, so they can search without a warrant

Did the officers get permission to search the office desk and a warrant to search the home

In this case Government power must exercise power in order to protect us from criminals like Carol

In this case the officers do not need 'probable cause' to obtain a warrant

I think once the officers get permission from the owner of the busines, they can search Carol's desk because there is no expected privacy against search. But there must be a warrant to search her home if it clearly not an extension of the business

Scenario # 2. Conrad was stopped on Emmons avenue on his way to KCC. He complied with the officer and provided the requested documents. The officer went to his car, came back and informed Conrad that he was free to go. On driving off, Conrad hurled 'f...k you...Black Lives Matter'...f....k you. I am not afraid of you killers. The officer chased Conrad and ordered him out of his car, hang cuffed, searched him and had him wait in the police car for 2 hours as a way of punishing him for the profanity*

___ The police officer has all right to apprehend Conrad because of his foul mouth

____I don't think that the police have a right to this action unless Conrad threatened him

____Police can arrest individuals for using profanity

____Black Lives Matter is a curse phrase to police, and they can arrest you for accusing them of killing Blacks if you do not have any proof

____Conrad had no right to use 'Black Lives Matter' in the situation because the police officer was being nice to him initially

_____In this situation Conrad loses all rights because he created a problem by hurling curse words to the officer

_____The officer has a right to punish anyone they believe is a threat

_____So what it is... just a mere search.....it's not like Conrad is charged with anything

____This does not tell me why the officer stopped Contrad in the first place. What it a check point? Was probable cause established and in this case no threats were made against the officer. His ego is just bruised. Conrad has a right against 'ego bruising arrests'

_____Probable cause is not in question because the officer allowed Conrad to go but then by hurling the profanity another layer of probable cause was established for the officer to temporarily seize him

____This situation clearly shows officer abuse of power

Scenario # 3. Officer Jake was about to end his shift. While driving to his precinct he sees a high school friend. He stops to engage with the old friend. About 10 minutes into the conversation, he hears a scream from the house across from where he was standing. The scream continues and a man repeated calls for 'help' and 'help me rape'. Officer Jake enters the home to help the man and found a woman on him trying to rape him. The woman later files a suit against the police Dept for unlaw entry and interfering in a personal domestic matter.*

_____I am still stuck on how a woman can get rape a man

_____The woman should win because it is private domestic matter

____The officer unlawfully entered the home. What if they were acting out some sexual fantasy and it got loud

_____I am with the woman; the officer has no right to enter any home without probable cause

______The screams did not rise to establishing probable cause and so the officer should not have entered the home

_____The first problem is that the officer, on duty, was talking to a friend - case closed, he is wrong

_____If the officer's shift was about to end, clearly it ended during the conversation with the friend. Therefore, he was not on duty and should not have entered the home

_____If he was still on duty, absolutely yes, he can enter the home with a warrant

____If the officer did not enter the home to help the man, we the citizens would complain that they do not perform their job effectively

_____The Government gives us too many rights - so we get confused about what we should or should not sue for

____The scream established probable cause and the officer had a right to enter the home without a warrant as a matter of 'exigent circumstance'

Scenario # 4. Officer Richards is trying to find a convict who escaped from a nearby jail. Going door-to-door in the neighborhood, he asked and was given permission to search the neighbors' home. The community is committed to supporting the police and therefore, when officer asked Ms. Rudy to search her home for the escapee, she obliged. Sandra, unaware of what happening was standing at her door looking in the direction of the police flashing light. About three minutes after, a police officer, officer Boulevard, drove up into her driveway and rushed into her home. Upon entering the home, the officer found an illegal weapon locked in a drawer.*

____In a case like this, the officer has the right to search every home in the area he thinks the suspect might be

____Neighbors automatically lose their rights against search in a case like this

_____In a manhunt everything an officer does is fair game to protect the community

____The officer did not need permission from any of the neighbors because it is a matter of apprehending a threat and keeping the community safe

____The officer did the right thing by informing the neighbor of the situation and seeking her assistance to allow the search of her property

____The officer did the right thing by informing the neighbor of the situation and seeking her assistance. Therefore, one neighbor's permission gives the right to search all homes on only that block

____Since everyone one has a right to the block, in a case like this it is established as one place and therefore only one neighbor's consent is required

____Officer Richard's consent does not extend to officer Boulevard and besides no one neighbor can give consent. Therefore, the illegal weapon found cannot be used against Sandra in a criminal case - it is inadmissible. This is crazy...because the weapon was not even found in 'plain view'.

_____This is like saying that in pursuing the escapee, if an officer sees a crime in occurring, he/she cannot apprehend the criminal because that was not the purpose of entering the home. This is fair game, and Sandra has no rights against such search because it was in 'plain view' and she is a criminal. So the officers did not catch the escapee but another criminal - good for them

____The illegal gun was found in 'plain view'. Therefore, Sandra's rights were not violated

Scenario # 5. Megan's former boyfriend was upset about their breakup. After calling her for one month without any success, he decided to enter her apartment. Upon entering the apartment, he looked around for any signs of a new boyfriend (clothes, shoes, letter, etc.). Instead of finding evidence of a new boyfriend, he found a large Ziploc bag of cocaine. He later turns them over to the police.*

____The 4th Amendment does not apply here, because the boyfriend is not a police officer or does not represent the Government

____The minute she breaks up with her boyfriend, she loses all rights to privacy and the ex-boyfriend can search and turn over contraband found in her dwelling

____The ex-boyfriend was acting in the best interest of the community when he turned over the drugs

____The drug would be admissible since the ex-boyfriend was not acting as a government agent and therefore does not need a warrant.

____We have to assess how the ex-boyfriend entered her dwelling. Was it 'breaking and entering' which is a crime, or did he have a key? If he did not commit a crime the bag of drugs is fair game and can be used against Megan

____He knows about her drug habits and so he has a responsibility to not only report her activity but to turn over the drugs. I think he is fulfilling his 'civic duty'

Scenario # 6. Officer Banks is a neighbor to Trevor Scone. Officer Banks suspects that Trevor is a 'bad man' and involved in some sort of a crime or crimes. However, he is not sure but convinced that something is wrong. One morning Officer Banks went to his front door to get his paper and saw Trevor throw what he thought was a suspicious bag in his garbage bin. Up and down the street, neighbors placed their garbage bins on the curb for pickup. Officer Banks waited until Trevor left for work and ran over to his garbage bin and pulled out the bag. He found incriminating items.*

___Officer Banks has no right to take anything from Trevor's bin

___The officer violated Trevor's rights be infringing upon his privacy

___Plain and simple - the garbage is Trevor's property, and the government must prove 'probable cause' to obtain a search warrant to retrieve such item

___Officer Banks was being a 'nosey neighbor and not acting in the capacity of an officer with legitimate concerns and so the items cannot be used against Trevor

____The Officer should have waited until the truck picks up the garbage and then ask the driver to allow him to search the bin

____The Officer should confront Trevor and discuss his intent to go into his garbage and wait for permission in which case he does not need a warrant

____Flat out the officer needs a warrant to search the bin

____This case is clearly garbage, no 'pun' intended..... once Trevor disposes of the garbage and it is on the curb, it is no longer his property. It is fair game to not only the officer but anyone who wants to take anything from the bin.

Scenario

# 7. Imani is arrested for reckless driving. Officer Casey then searched her purse and found a pistol for which she has no permit.*

____I bet she was drunk and being reckless, which undermines her right to privacy of property and against a search

___Officer Casey has no business searching the purse. His concern should be public safety

____Imani can sue for invasion of privacy

____Officer Casey was operating within the scope of the 4th amendment because Imani was under arrest; therefore, the purse can be searched

Scenario # 8. The police received a tip from a reliable informant that Judy is making and distributing counterfeit money from her home. Acting on the information, they obtained a 'no-knock' arrest warrant. However, instead of counterfeit money, the police found an 80-year-old woman with a dozen cats and clearly not involved in any illegal activities, and no one else lives there or uses her property. In executing the 'no-knock' warrant, Judy suffered a mild heart attack and spent two weeks in the hospital.*

____This case is about a 'snitch'. You cannot trust anything a snitch says - point blank

____Old women commit crimes too, so they are fair game

___The police obtained a warrant, I do not see a problem with the execution of it. She is old that is expected but the police did nothing wrong

____It's unfortunate she had a mild heart attack, but the police were acting on the words of a reliable informant

____The fact that the informant was reliable that means the police has a good relationship with him/her and so they were acting on the grounds of that relationship

_____The police should not have been granted a warrant because it does not seem they did their investigation. The police dropped the ball when they failed to follow-up with an investigation after receiving the information from the informant

____Once Judy because a suspect, according to the reliable informant, she no longer has right against illegal searches and seizures

____I cannot explain it but the officers were wrong - she is 80-years-old for god sakes

Scenario # 9. Tory lives in a beautiful one family home with her husband and three children. The eldest of the three, Lanz expressed to his parents that he wanted to try living on his own. Tory discussed with her husband the possibility of buying a trailer and parking it close to the home in the back so he could go from the main house to the trailer without problems. Lanz returned home from school to a new trailer - he was excited and moved in immediately. Two months later, neighbors suspected Lanz was selling drugs based on the constant traffic of some "undesirable" people. Officers got a search warrant for the home. While executing the warrant they found nothing in the main home so extended the search to the adjoining trailer and found bags of drugs.*

___These kids are too spoilt and feel they can get away with anything

___I bet this is some rich kid because no poor kid would have a trailer as an apartment

____The officers based the warrant on the neighbors' complaints so they cannot search the trailer

___In order to get the warrant, the officers must establish 'probable cause' and the trailer must be established as part of the dwelling, so it can be searched

____Although it is an established one-family home, the warrant must explicitly say the trailer

___No, they cannot search the trailer, because it is not a traditional home. Besides it is attached to the main house but not a part of the main house

___Lanz has a right to privacy in his trailer because it is not a part of the main house

___It was an illegal search because the officers obtained a limited warrant

___Upon realizing that there is a trailer in the back of the house, the officers should have retreated to obtain a new warrant to include the trailer

___Lanz can sue the city for an illegal search

___Warrant established to search the dwelling/home. The trailer was part of the dwelling/home and therefore can be searched and illegal found is admissible in court

Scenario # 10. Craig and Juann were having a lovely dinner and out of the blue, Juann initiated an argument. After arguing for over 2 hours, Craig retreated to his man cave in the basement. Juann, still angry, called the police and told them Craig had illegal substance in the basement. The police showed up and Juann opened the door and gave them permission to search the basement. Craig upon hearing the voices came upstairs and saw officer Jude at the front door. Officer Jude stepped into the home and asked Juann to direct him to the basement. Craig, a dentist, immediately refused the search, the officer smiled, and moved to the basement conducted a search and found drugs.*

____This is a domestic issue, and no one was hurt so why did they call the police?

____The police should not waste time on frivolous matters when they are violent crimes occurring every minute

___What a waste of police time.......silliness...he can take drugs in his home. He is not bothering anyone and clearly not before the argument

___The police must establish property ownership. If both individuals own the property and present at the time the police arrive, both need to give consent to a search. The 4th amendment protects them from illegal search and seizure. When Craig leaves the house Juann, as ownership, can give consent to a search

___What type of drugs were found? As a dentist he might have a right to certain types of drugs or established that he is conducting research in his basement

____The police must take these instances seriously in the event the Craig becomes violent later on in the evening

____Although Craig did not seem a threat at the time, Officer Jude was being proactive by searching the premises for anything that may later on become a factor in an escalated situation

___If the officer was so concerned, he should have removed any and all things that might become a factor in an escalated situation. For example, knives, or anything with an edge that can cause serious bodily injury

____The officer acted out of concern and since he had permission to search the home they both live in, the officer did not violate Craig's rights against illegal search and seizure

___The police should arrest Juann for knowing that Craig had drugs and did not report it before the argument

Scenario # 11. Officers Elliot and Persad obtained a warrant to search the home of Risky Bailey. During the execution of the warrant, officer Elliot saw on a cabinet top a severed finger in a Ziploc bag. The officer removed the bag, although it was not part of the warrant.*

___Once the officer obtained a warrant on the grounds of 'probable cause', everything in the dwelling being searched is fair game

___The officers had no right to remove anything that was not established on the warrant

___The finger cannot be used as evidence in any criminal case against Risky

___This is the problem with warrants, they are never specific which then creates an issue further down the line about what can or cannot be used in court

____Clearly the officers did the right thing and acted within the scope of the law when they removed the finger; after all, it was in plain view

___Being in a Ziploc bag is not plain view. The officers had to have taken up the bag to see what was in it.

____You cannot have anything in your home..the Government behaves like they own everything . You don't own anything - you think you do but you don't

____The finger could have been from someone Risky knew well and was keeping it safe until they pick it up

____I just don't see the problem with Risky having a finger. I bet she has nine fingers and the one in the bag is hers.... Now the officers are embarrassed they jumped to a conclusion because they think Risky is a criminal, hence the search warrant. Shame on them...

____This is crazy...what country do you live in that you cannot just have a finger in a Ziploc bag. It's your home for crying out loud...

___The finger is a non-factor. Stick to the explicit language of the search warrant

____I could see if it was a head the officers found but a finger is not unusual and definitely beyond the scope of the warrant

____This is illegal, the officers need to pretend they did not see the finger...get another warrant that stipulates body parts and come back for a new search