California Vs Greenwood Essay Research Paper The
California Vs Greenwood Essay, Research Paper
The constabulary, moving on a tip that Billy Greenwood was covering illegal
narcotics, searched some rubbish bags that he had left on the kerb. Actually,
to be more specific, they asked Greenwood & # 8217 ; s refuse adult male to put aside his
thrash from the remainder of the vicinity & # 8217 ; s, so searched it after it was
isolated. Finding gear associated with drugs in the bags, the
constabularies applied for a hunt warrant, including a description of the things
they found in the rubbish. Based on grounds from both the refuse and the
hunt of the house, Greenwood was convicted of drug-related charges.
Greenwood appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the hunt of his
refuse was illegal because it was searched without a warrant.
My side of the instance, which is the province of California, tends to reason
three chief things. First, the exclusion to the warrant demand, which is
“ searching abandoned belongings. ” We besides tend to reason two old tribunal
instances, Oliver V. US and Katz vs. United States.
In the instance Olive V. US, Oliver had posted no intruding marks around
his fenced in farm. Two Kentucky State narcotics officers, besides moving on a
tip that Oliver was turning narcotics, walked around the fenced in country to
see a field of home-grown marijua
na. This instance besides dealed with the right of
privateness. The tribunals decided that the constabulary had the right to bear down Oliver
because of field position. In the 2nd instance that we are traveling to reason, which
is Katz vs. United States, “ no knock ” legislative acts were defined. These allow
constabularies to forcibly come in a topographic point when no 1 will allow them in and the constabulary
hold a ground to believe that a fleeting is concealing out or grounds is being
destroyed. Our last statement has to make with the exclusionary regulation. As
stated before, seeking abandoned belongings can be warrant less. The province
of California will repent that refuse, being accessible to kids, animate beings,
and passerby & # 8217 ; s, can be considered abandoned.
The opposing side may reason the case in point of Mapp vs. Ohio is a ground
why Greenwood & # 8217 ; s charges should be dropped. The province of California will
argue that the constabulary did NOT coerce themselves into Greenwood & # 8217 ; s house without
a warrant. They had a absolutely legal warrant, which was non attempted to be
hidden or kept from Greenwood.
I believe that if the tribunal sides with the province of California, it will
benefit society in a large manner. It will maintain Greenwood from covering any more
narcotics, and besides allow others cognize that no affair what they argue, what they
did was still incorrect, and will non be excused.
