Response 2 530

100 word response 1 reference Due 9/1/2023

Rossi

1. Sally’s arrest was legal. The police officers were allowed to enter without a warrant because they had sufficient and observational probable cause. Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge and of which they have reasonable trustworthy information are sufficient to suggest to an officer that an offense has been or is being committed. In this scenario, the warrantless arrest is allowed for multiple reasons. One of the exceptions to arrest or search, held by the Court in  Payton v. New York (1980), without a warrant is plain view. The officers could see clearly through the window that a crime was in progress. They were able to determine that the juveniles were intoxicated from both the totality of the circumstances and their prior knowledge or training.

2. The search of Joe’s garbage was legal. Police did not require a search warrant because the garbage failed the privacy interest test.  Katz v. United States (1967) defined a reasonable expectation of privacy. To assert privacy interest, a person must exhibit an actual expectation of privacy, and that expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.  California v. Greenwood (1988) addressed the question, “do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage that you left outside your home to be collected by the garbage truck?” The Court held that society does not deem this to be private because garbage is being discarded off or abandoned in the street. Privacy interest cannot be asserted in that which has been abandoned. Conclusively, Joe’s garbage was deemed abandoned once he left it out in the street to pick up. Therefore, the police’s search was legal and Joe’s rights were not violated.

3. In this case, my team has to ensure that there is sufficient probable cause to obtain a search warrant. I would recommend that my team speak to a confidential informant.  United states v. White (1971) held that it is legal for LEO to record a conversation through a confidential informant and testify to the nature of the conversation. There is no assumed expectation of privacy because the suspect would be speaking openly and freely to the informant, offering information that might lead to sufficient probable cause. Specifically, I would be looking for a lead, such as the name of a dealer. Once the warrant was issued, my team would be instructed to search for large amounts of cash or drugs. This would then allow me to arrest Perpetrator A without having to exclude any evidence because it was all obtained legally.