This is a paper dealing with search and seizure laws relevant tot Constitutional Law

Bob Chattin 11/27/01 Criminal Law and surgical operation Dr. Smith-Alder join States v. Coffman 4:97CR344 Final decision I.Proceedings Below: plaintiff in error was charged in the United States District Court eastern District of Missouri, Cause numeral: 4:97CR344 for violations of 21 USCA 841(d)(1) and 18 USC 922(9)(1). The gun charge at a lower dominance 18 USC 922(9)(1) was dropped as a result of a exculpation agreement, and the Appellant entered a conditional guilty justification to a lower place Rule 11 F.R.C.P. The conditional vindication left undefended the question of wrongful seizure for the appeal. A guilty plea was entered on December 8, 1997, and sentencing was had on February 13, 1998. key out of appeal was filed with the territorial dominion clerk on February 18, 1998. II.Facts U.S. legate marshal Luke Alder and Brian McKee were designate to track and retrieve rhenium Braddy for failing to show up for his court appearance. While conducting thi s investigating a confidential extension suggested that a convicted felon, John downwind Coffman, associated and helped manufacture drugs with Ray Braddy and efficiency be able to abet them in their investigation. With this new education the two Deputy Marshals decided to question Coffman on the whereabouts of Ray Braddy. On process 15, 1996, the two deputies arrived at the Coffman residence with the drift to question him. They in addition had learned that Coffman lived with an unstable and wild woman. Upon whack on the admission and identifying themselves Coffman agreed for the deputies to enter for the purpose of unbelieving the Appellant. Upon entering the lick the deputies noticed an empty handgun holster pause on nonpareil of the chairs. The deputies asked if they could conduct a protective spoil of the apartment to discover their own personal safety to which Coffman told them the place was clean and that they could pee a look for themselves. Appellant...

--References --> Search and seizure issues ar adept and complicated. The author of this essay does not understand either the serve of law or the procedure and, therefore, writes misleadingly. First, the decision reviewed is apparently that of the supreme Court since it is the Court of Appeals that is reversed. But the author does not let the cat out of the bag us how and what the Court of Appeals decided. That is where the appeal from the Dist rict Court must(prenominal) eat up gone. Second, the author misstates the law of third-party take to searches under the federal law, although this is comparatively unimportant since this is not a thrid party consent case. (One wonders wherefore it was mentioned at all.) Third, the author does not discuss the law of screen background of consent--THIS CASE WAS PRIMARILY DECIDED ON THE incident THAT THE OFFICERS WENT beyond THE SCOPE OF THE CONSENT GIVEN. This is an unimpressive essay--the persons who rated it above number do not know the law. If you want to get a wide of the mark essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay