Mary Haverford was pulled over by police for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. She exited her vehicle and after field sobriety tests were conducted, she was arrested at the scene. Her car was then searched and the police officer found contraband in a leather bag located in the locked glove compartment of her vehicle. What motions might Mary file in court on possession charges? How would the prosecutor respond to these defense motions?
What will be an ideal response?
Mary would file a Motion to Suppress the evidence seized in the warrantless search. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from making unreasonable searches without a proper search warrant. The prosecutor would argue that there are exceptions to this general exclusionary rule that apply here. An officer may search the immediate surroundings of a defendant to prevent destruction of evidence and to discover any weapons within defendant’s reach that may present a danger to the officer. He may argue that that once police have legitimately stopped an automobile, they might conduct a warrantless search of the entire passenger area of an automobile, including all closed containers and packages that may conceal the object of the search. He may also argue that once arrested police are entitled to seize the automobile and conduct a custodial search to inventory all contents.
You might also like to view...
What is meant by the term "sexual harassment?"
What will be an ideal response?
Court reporters have the right to change what a lawyer or judge said because they are not under oath
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
An employee must have worked four out of the last five calendar quarters in order to qualify for unemployment benefits
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
In Disciplinary Counsel v. Owen, the court held that?
A. ?the lawyer who engages in a sexual relationship with a client's spouse during the representation creates an inherent and impermissible conflict between the interests of the lawyer and those of the client. B. ?it was not an ethics violation to engage in a sexual relationship with a client's spouse during the representation. C. ?Owen would not be subject to discipline because he fully cooperated with the investigation. D. ?there was no ethics violation because no ethics rule prohibited engaging in a sexual relationship with a client's spouse during the representation.