Case Study 2: Plain View, Open Fields, Abandonment, and Border Searches as They Relate to Search and Seizures
Due Week 6 and worth 100 points
Officer Williams asked the neighborhood’s regular trash collector to put the content of the defendant’s garbage that was left on the curb in plastic bags and to turn over the bags to him at the end of the day. The trash collector did as the officer asked in order to not mix the garbage once he collected the defendant’s garbage. Then, Officer Williams’ partner, Officer Martinez, searched through the garbage and found items indicative of narcotics use. Officer Williams and Officer Martinez then recited the information that was obtained from the trash in an affidavit in support of a warrant to search the defendant’s home. Officer Martinez and Officer Williams encountered the defendant at the house later that day upon execution of the warrant. The officers found quantities of cocaine and heroin during the search and arrested the defendant on felony narcotics charges.
Write a 1- to 2-page paper in which you:
- Identify the constitutional amendment that would govern Officer Williams’ and Officer Martinez’ actions.
- Analyze the validity and constitutionality of the officers’ actions.
- Assess if the officers’ actions were justified under the doctrines of plain view, abandonment, open fields, or border searches. Support your response by citing specific case law and/or contemporary cases.
- Use at least three quality references. Note: Wikipedia and other similar websites do not qualify as academic resources.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
- This course requires use of new Strayer Writing Standards (SWS). The format is different than other Strayer University courses. Please take a moment to review the SWS documentation for details.
- Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow SWS or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
- Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
- Research and analyze procedures governing the process of arrest through trial.
- Critically debate the constitutional safeguards of key amendments with specific attention to the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.
- Describe the difference between searchers, warrantless searches, and stops.
- Write clearly and concisely about the criminal procedure using proper writing mechanics.
Grading for this assignment will be based on answer quality, logic/organization of the paper, and language and writing skills, using the following rubric
.
11 hours
seen
Grading for this assignment will be based on answer quality, logic/organization of the paper, and language and writing skills, using the following rubric.
|
Points: 100 |
Case Study 2: Plain View, Open Fields, Abandonment, and Border Searches as They Relate to Search and Seizures |
||||
|
Criteria |
Unacceptable Below 60% F |
Meets Minimum Expectations 60-69% D |
Fair 70-79% C |
Proficient 80-89% B |
Exemplary 90-100% A |
|
1. Identify the constitutional amendment that would govern Officer Williams’ and Officer Martinez’ actions. Weight: 35% |
Did not submit or incompletely identified the constitutional amendment that would govern Officer Williams’ and Officer Martinez’ actions. |
Insufficiently identified the constitutional amendment that would govern Officer Williams’ and Officer Martinez’ actions. |
Partially identified the constitutional amendment that would govern Officer Williams’ and Officer Martinez’ actions. |
Satisfactorily identified the constitutional amendment that would govern Officer Williams’ and Officer Martinez’ actions. |
Thoroughly identified the constitutional amendment that would govern Officer Williams’ and Officer Martinez’ actions. |
|
2. Analyze the validity and constitutionality of Officer Williams’ and Officer Martinez’ actions. |
Did not submit or incompletely analyzed the validity and constitutionality of Officer Williams’ and Officer Martinez’ actions. |
Insufficiently analyzed the validity and constitutionality of Officer Williams’ and Officer Martinez’ actions. |
Partially analyzed the validity and constitutionality of Officer Williams’ and Officer Martinez’ actions. |
Satisfactorily analyzed the validity and constitutionality of Officer Williams’ and Officer Martinez’ actions. |
Thoroughly analyzed the validity and constitutionality of Officer Williams’ and Officer Martinez’ actions. |
|
3. Assess if the officers’ actions were justified under the doctrines of plain view, abandonment, open fields, or border searches. Support your response by citing specific case law and/or contemporary cases. Weight: 25% |
Did not submit or incompletely assessed if the officers’ actions were justified under the doctrines of plain view, abandonment, open fields, or border searches. Did not submit or incompletely supported your response with the citation of specific case law and/or contemporary cases. |
Insufficiently assessed if the officers’ actions were justified under the doctrines of plain view, abandonment, open fields, or border searches. Insufficiently supported your response with the citation of specific case law and/or contemporary cases. |
Partially assessed if the officers’ actions were justified under the doctrines of plain view, abandonment, open fields, or border searches. Partially supported your response with the citation of specific case law and/or contemporary cases. |
Satisfactorily assessed if the officers’ actions were justified under the doctrines of plain view, abandonment, open fields, or border searches. Satisfactorily supported your response with the citation of specific case law and/or contemporary cases. |
Thoroughly assessed if the officers’ actions were justified under the doctrines of plain view, abandonment, open fields, or border searches. Thoroughly supported your response with the citation of specific case law and/or contemporary cases. |
|
4. Cite three references. Weight: 5% |
No references provided. |
Does not meet the required number of references; all references poor quality choices. |
Does not meet the required number of references; some references poor quality choices. |
Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices. |
Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices. |
|
5. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements Weight: 10% |
More than 8 errors present. |
7-8 errors present. |
5-6 errors present. |
3-4 errors present. |
0-2 errors present. |
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
