'5th and 6th amendment\r'

'The fourth part Amendment protects the right of the people to be ensure in their mortals, houses, papers and effects, against un valid lookupes and seizures, and provides that no guarantees shall issue but upon apparent typesetters case supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be lookuped and the persons to be seized. In order to cave in equi presumptive cause, the police officer must try that in that location is a fair probability that the study to be searched contains give tongue to or the person to be arrested has attached a criminal offence; a mere possibility is insufficient.A search without a warrant is presumed unreasonable wanting the resence of a disclosed censure. U. S. v. Johnson. The Supreme salute has h days that this is permissible, but neverthe slight under trustworthy circumstances. The first issue is whether Detective Davis (DD) dedicateted a search when she went down to the basement. A search occurred if Bish op Short had a unverifiable antepast of privacy which family would reserve to be reasonable (Katz v. U. S. The defense would presumable argue that the Bishop (B) had a subjective expectancy of privacy in the basement, and that there was an intention expectation of privacy also because only the area where services took place were absolved to the public. The government would counter by rock that DD simply walked downstairs during the services, which were open to the public, so anyone nad door misuseway to this area. Additionally, there was a childrens playroom, which could be used to take moth-eaten or crying babies during the services, and that was therefore fond to the public.If other members of society could gain access and view the basement, then there was not an clinical expectation of privacy. Accordingly, DD did not commit a search simply by going into the basement. Whether a search occurred becomes less clear once DD entered Bs office. The overnment would argue t hat the door was open, so DD did not commit a search by merely come in Bs office. Whether this was a search was less significant, however, than the outset of the desk draughtsman. Even if DD had legal access to the office, she surely â€Å"searched” when she opened the drawer.According to the simple(a) view exception of the warrant requirement, a police officer can seize anything in plain view once legally in a space, but the officer need probable cause to believe that what is today apparent is inglorious or indicate of a crime, and it cannot require further investigation. azimuth v. Hicks. The Supreme Court has even eld that lifting a turntable to view a serial number is an illegal search that extends beyond the limits of the plain view doctrine. genus Arizona v. Hicks.Certainly, opening the desk drawer is more of an onslaught ot privacy than litting a turntable. Further, the detense would argue that B had two a subjective and objective (an expectation that soci ety is prepared to recognize as reasonable) expectation of privacy in the contents of the drawer. Katz. B would argue he had a subjective expectation of privacy, for the most part because the drawer was closed, but also that society would recognize this as a reasonable expectation because the drawer was closed.If the government had not brought this up earlier, it would certainly bring up the argument by now that it had probable cause to believe there was distinguish of the crime (possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute) establish on the informants tip. Whether an informants tip is sufficient for establishing probable cause depends on the Gates pith of the circumstances test, where there should be exposit facts that show given all the circumstances, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.To simply say that the drugs are â€Å"stored somewhere in the church service” is not necessarily enough to establish probable cause. Even if it was enough to establish probable cause, DD certainly had time to bug out a warrant before trenchant the church. Accordingly, by the time DD opened the drawer, a law administration would potential find that DD affiliated a â€Å"search”, and anything she found in that wou d be suppress certainly ed. The detense woul d take this one step turtner and argue that opening the bible was a search, even if opening the drawer wasnt.DD would gull needed to get a warrant to open and search the bible. Accordingly, a court would likely find that DD illegally searched Bs drawer when she opened the drawer and opened the bible, and the ocaine would likely be suppressed as evidence to be used against B. A court would likely similarly suppress the cocaine, spreadsheets, and hard currency found in the room following(a) to the office. The defense would argue that B had both a subjective and reasonable, objective expectation of privacy in this room (Katz) and that DD had no warr ant that allowed her to legally enter this area.\r\n'