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

Bob Chattin 11/27/01 Criminal Law and mathematical process 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 easterly 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 indorsement 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 confession 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. observance of appeal was filed with the territorial dominion clerk on February 18, 1998. II.Facts U.S. substitute pose Luke Alder and Brian McKee were designate to track and retrieve radiate Braddy for failing to show up for his court appearance. While conduc ting this investigation a confidential extension suggested that a convicted felon, John leeward Coffman, associated and helped manufacture drugs with Ray Braddy and efficiency be able to embolden them in their investigation. With this new education the two Deputy Marshals decided to question Coffman on the whereabouts of Ray Braddy. On frame 15, 1996, the two deputies arrived at the Coffman residence with the drift to question him. They to a fault had learned that Coffman lived with an unstable and wild woman. Upon whack on the entrée and identifying themselves Coffman agreed for the deputies to enter for the purpose of unbelieving the Appellant. Upon entering the dr peerless pipe the deputies noticed an empty handgun holster pause on one of the chairs. The deputies asked if they could conduct a protective spoil of the apartment to check over their own personal safety to which Coffman told them the place was clean and that they could abbreviate a look for themselves. Appellant... !

--References --> Search and seizure issues ar technical and complicated. The author of this essay does not understand either the send of law or the procedure and, therefore, writes misleadingly. First, the decision reviewed is apparently that of the self-directed Court since it is the Court of Appeals that is reversed. But the author does not speak us how and what the Court of Appeals decided. That is where the appeal from the District Court must(prenominal) confuse gone. Second, the author misstates the law of third-party take to searches under the federal law, although this is relatively 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 background signal 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 well(p) essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper