What're you reading right now?

el jorge loco

Staff member
Moderator
#1
That's right? Tu enojado hermano?

What are you guys reading at this moment. Copy+Paste or type it up.

I'm reading this:

Police investigating a street shooting recognized the victim, Charles Todd, who was a major drug trafficker in the upper west side of the city. Todd had been shot execution-style three times int he head. The investigating officers noticed red marks around the victim's throat. Missing from the victim's body was a heavy gold necklace with a crucifix which the victim always wore. The officers speculated that the necklace had been ripped away from Todd's body. Later the same night, police received a tip from an informant who was a regular police source of information about drug trafficking that Todd had been murdered by John Sanford, a competitor whose territory had been encrpached upon by Todd's people. Sanford who was also known as a major drug dealer in the same part of the city, and the informant said that Sanford was sitting on an enormous cache of drugs.

Armed with the information from the informant, police presented a magistrate with probable cause to believe that Sanford was involved in Todd's murder and requested a warrant to search Sanford's home for the necklace. The officers did not present the magistrate with information about rugs. The warrant ordered police to search Sanford's home for the necklace. The warrant did not command the officers to search for drugs. Prior to entering the Sanford home, the commanding officer instructed the search team to look for the necklace and drugs. Once inside, police scoured the premises looking for drugs and the necklace. Several closets on the 1st floor revealed large quantities of drugs. Police then searched the rest of the house. On the second floor of the home, in a child's dresser drawer, police found the necklace. Sanford's lawyer moves to suppress the necklace and the drugs.

How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?
 

el jorge loco

Staff member
Moderator
#2
Here's my answer by the way:

An search warrant includes a particular object to be searched at a particular place. Here, the affidavit which supported the warrant that the neutral and detached magistrate issued only applied to the necklace. The search of the drugs took place outside the scope of the warrant. Prosecution will argue that the drugs were found in the course of the search for the necklace. On the other hand, defense will argue that the commanding officer’s orders to search for drugs as well violates the warrants limitations as well as any good faith reliance the police may have had. Therefore, the necklace remains admissible as evidence as to the murder, but the drugs are suppressed as evidence.
 
#5
I actually haven't seen the movie either. I really do enjoy the books though. I got the whole series as a gift and was pretty much hooked. I find the concept of demi-humans, gods, and mythical monsters pretty interesting. I do recommend the series if you ever do decide to pick it up.