![]() ![]() For this section, I will examine the validity and legality of the Officer’s employment of the “Bloodhound” device and the subsequent evidence obtained from it. Then, using this information, the Officers were able to obtain a search and seizure warrant. Officers later obtained additional data from the “Bloodhound” devise that apparently identified the presence of controlled dangerous substances, such as marijuana, and other substances known to be used in the distribution of controlled dangerous substances. The Capital City Officers subsequently utilized the data retrieved from the “Bloodhound” device to track Defendant Dipster and his associates. Capital City Police Officers Do-Right and Justice had placed a “Bloodhound” electronic surveillance device onto a vehicle operated by Defendant Dripster but registered to another party. I will render the majority opinion in this mock case in the following paragraphs. In doing so, the Court will consider an accepted statement of facts, as posted on the University of Arizona Global Campus website entitled “Supreme Court Option,” and apply the applicable case law to render a decision. To accomplish this, the case must be reviewed starting when the Capital City police initially contacted the defendants. Additionally, the Court is to consider whether the death penalty sentence was appropriately handed down. Dripster, Dummy, and Stupido, the Court is to consider the validity of the evidence presented that was gathered through electronic devices, interrogations, and a search warrant. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |