5th and 6th amendment

The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against indefensible take c bees and seizures, and provides that no warrants sh both issue but upon apparent start supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons to be seized. In order to form probable cause, the officer essential establish that on that point is a fair probability that the welkin to be searched contains try or the person to be arrested has tearted a criminal offence a mere possibility is insufficient.A search without a warrant is presumed un liable absent the resence of a recognized exception. U. S. v. Johnson. The Supreme Court has held that this is permissible, but yet under certain circumstances. The first issue is whether Detective Davis (DD) committed a search when she went down to the basement. A search occurred if Bishop Short had a indwelling expectation of privacy which society w ould deem to be reasonable (Katz v. U. S. The defence reaction would potential argue that the Bishop (B) had a subjective expectation of privacy in the basement, and that there was an objective expectation of privacy also because only the area where services took place were open to the public. The government would counter by literary argument that DD simply walked downstairs during the services, which were open to the public, so anyone nad access to this area. Additionally, there was a childrens playroom, which could be used to take loud or egregious babies during the services, and that was therefore accessible to the public.If other members of society could gain access and figure the basement, then there was not an objective expectation of privacy. Accordingly, DD did not commit a search simply by going into the basement. Whether a search occurred becomes less clear formerly DD entered Bs office. The overnment would argue that the door was open, so DD did not commit a search b y merely entering Bs office. Whether this was a search was less significant, however, than the inception of the desk drawer. Even if DD had legal access to the office, she sure enough searched when she opened the drawer.According to the plain view exception of the warrant requirement, a jurisprudence officer can seize anything in plain view once legally in a space, but the officer needs probable cause to cogitate that what is immediately apparent is contraband or render of a crime, and it cannot require further investigation. Arizona v. Hicks. The Supreme Court has up to now eld that lifting a turntable to view a serial heel is an illegal search that extends beyond the limits of the plain view doctrine. Arizona v. Hicks.Certainly, opening the desk drawer is more of an invasion ot privacy than litting a turntable. Further, the detense would argue that B had both a subjective and objective (an expectation that society is ready to recognize as reasonable) expectation of privac y in the contents of the drawer. Katz. B would argue he had a subjective expectation of privacy, mostly because the drawer was closed, but also that society would recognize this as a reasonable expectation because the drawer was closed.If the government had not brought this up earlier, it would sure as shooting add up the argument by now that it had probable cause to believe there was evidence of the crime (possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute) based on the informants tip. Whether an informants tip is sufficient for establishing probable cause depends on the Gates sum of money of the circumstances test, where there should be particularized facts that show given all the circumstances, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.To simply say that the drugs are stored somewhere in the church is not necessarily enough to establish probable cause. Even if it was enough to establish probable cause, DD certainly had epoch to absorb a warrant before searching the church. Accordingly, by the cartridge clip DD opened the drawer, a court would probable find that DD committed a search, and anything she found therein wou d be suppress certainly ed. The detense woul d take this one step turtner and argue that opening the parole was a search, even if opening the drawer wasnt.DD would have needed to get a warrant to open and search the bible. Accordingly, a court would likely find that DD illegally searched Bs drawer when she opened the drawer and opened the bible, and the ocaine would likely be suppressed as evidence to be used against B. A court would likely similarly suppress the cocaine, spreadsheets, and cash found in the room next to the office. The defense would argue that B had both a subjective and reasonable, objective expectation of privacy in this room (Katz) and that DD had no warrant that allowed her to legally enter this area.