Const.Law-1[1] - US v Watson Facts A reliable informant...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: US v. Watson Facts: A reliable informant notified an inspector that Watson had possession of stolen credit cards. Watson was arrested at a meeting between himself and the informant. He did not have any credit cards on his person when he was searched. The officers asked Watson if they could search his car he said yes. In the car they found 2 credit cards in other people’s names. Watson was placed under arrest for stolen identity and credit card theft. Question: What protection does the 4th amendment provide regarding an arrest made with probable cause and a search with the suspects consent? * Whether the search was reasonable because there was no warrant Holding: The USSC overturned the court of appeals decision Rationale: Under the 4th amendment the officers must only have probable cause to make a lawful arrest and consent was given by Watson even after he was told his Miranda rights therefore the search of his vehicle was lawful * 9th circuit court is the most reversed court in the US Atwater v. City of Lago Vista Facts: The appellant was stopped by an officer for failing to wear a seatbelt and securing her children with seatbelts. Which is illegal in Texas and punishable with a fine of up to 50$. The officer arrested the appellant and she was booked and confined for about and hour. * 1983 law is when someone brings a civil suit against the prosecutor or state Question: Whether the 4th Amendment forbids warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense? Holding: The previous decision of the District and Appellant courts was upheld stating that an officer has the option to detain someone for even minor criminal offenses. Rationale: The arrest was inconvenient to the appellant but not so extraordinary as to violate the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable seizures. This is because the USSC felt they couldn’t draw a clear line in the sand for every case because the officer must have the ability to use his discretion as long as there is a statute that makes the arrest lawful. Whren v. United States Facts: Two officers pulled over a suspicious vehicle after it had committed some simple traffic violations. As the officer approached the driver’s door he saw what appeared to be plastic bags containing drugs. The occupants were arrested and multiple kinds of drugs were found in the car. Question: Whether the 4th amendment allows for probable cause to be enough reason for an officer to seize and search a suspect? Holding: The USSC upheld the Court of appeals decision stating that probable cause is enough reason for and officer to search and seize a suspect. Rationale: The USSC believe that there is no realistic alternative to the traditional rule that probable cause justifies a search and seizure. The court stated that they would not make a rule based on the conduct of one officer....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/17/2008 for the course POSC 401 taught by Professor Davis during the Spring '08 term at University of Delaware.

Page1 / 27

Const.Law-1[1] - US v Watson Facts A reliable informant...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online