Do you think the Court would have decided the Groh v. Ramirez (2004) case differently if the evidence police were looking for had been found or if the officers had relied on more than information from a concerned citizen to establish probable cause?
ATF Agent Groh and the dissenting justices in Groh's case argued if "an officer has obtained a [defective] warrant and abided by its terms," he acted in good faith and Groh should be immune from the Ramirez's civil suit. Do you agree?
What will be an ideal response?
ANSWER: Answers may vary: The totality of the circumstances test is generally used to determine if probable cause is present or whether consent to search is voluntary. But with respect to the warrant requirement, the law is fairly strict and if the warrant was defective, it would not matter or bolster the Agent's case if he actually retrieved the evidence he was trying to find.
You might also like to view...
Answer the following statements true (T) or false (F)
Aristotle’s theory is not concerned with happiness or flourishing as a human being.
In common-law terms, a person who intended an act but not its consequences acted with
A. specific intent. B. general intent. C. transferred intent. D. particular intent.
Factual and proximate cause are the elements of causation
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
___________ ____________ involves the sacrifice of some personal freedom by endorsement of governmental law enforcement in exchange for protection and benefit of all
Fill in the blank(s) with the appropriate word(s).