del Carmen & Walker: Briefs of Leading Cases in Law Enforcement, 8th Edition

Apply the Case Law

1. Search of a Residence

A law enforcement officer swore an affidavit for a search warrant that was signed by a magistrate. The officer exercised the warrant and seized evidence based on the search. The affidavit’s material facts, which were used to support the finding of probable cause for the search, read as follows:

On November 13, 2011, Louis and Clarke were shot to death with 9-millimeter rounds. Timmy, an individual incarcerated in the North Bluff County Jail, confessed his involvement in the murders to at least three people, one of whom was a friend of the suspect (Bill). Bill told law enforcement officials that Timmy told him that he had traded a pistol for marijuana with an individual named “Blacky.” Blacky was known to law enforcement as Roberto Gonzales. Bill knew that Blacky lived at the address listed on the search warrant.

The affidavit described the “thing to be searched for” as a 9-millimeter pistol and/or ammunition and the place to be searched as Gonzales’s residence. The officer exercised the warrant and seized evidence based on the search. While searching the residence, officers found several items that they suspected were stolen. The officers determined the items were stolen because they radioed to the police station and had the serial numbers checked out. They also discovered cocaine and related paraphernalia, marijuana, and several firearms. However, the pistol they were looking for was not among the items seized.

Questions

Which cases are most applicable to these facts?
Your Answer
Correct Answer
- Edwards v. U.S. (Chapter 16) to address whether the jailhouse confession of Timmy to Bill was constitutional (students will need more information about whether Timmy had requested a lawyer and in what capacity Bill was or was not working for the police).
- Illinois v. Gates (Chapter 1) to address the totality of the circumstances of whether law enforcement officers had probable cause for the search.
- U.S. v. Leon (Chapter 2) if the argument is made that there was insufficient evidence in the affidavit to establish probable cause for the warrant.
- Arizona v. Hicks (Chapter 13) to address whether the stolen items were in plain view, because they were not immediately recognizable as stolen and the serial numbers had to be called in.
- Horton v. California (Chapter 13) to address whether the drugs were in plain view.
What was the basis for the search in this case?
Your Answer

Correct Answer

A search warrant. The stolen property and drugs were seized under the plain view doctrine.
Could the officers seize the drugs?
Your Answer

Correct Answer

Yes. The drugs were immediately recognizable as contraband, and the officers were legally in the place to be searched.
Could the officers seize firearms?
Your Answer

Correct Answer

Yes. The firearms were immediately recognizable as contraband, and the officers were legally in the place to be searched.
Could the officers seize the suspected stolen items?
Your Answer

Correct Answer

Probably not. The stolen items were not immediately recognizable as contraband, and the officers had to radio in for confirmation.