Access over 20 million homework & study documents

Case Analysis Fact Analysis

Content type
User Generated
Subject
Business Law
Type
Homework
Rating
Showing Page:
1/4
CASE ANALYSIS: FACTS PATTERNS 1
Case Analysis: Fact Patterns
Author
Institution

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/4
CASE ANALYSIS: FACTS PATTERNS 2
State vs Kurt
Issues
In this case the main issues include;
1. Whether the noise ordinance could be applied retrogressively to Kurt.
2. Whether the search of Kurt’s premises by the officer was legal.
3. Whether the officer could arrest Kurt on the discovery of marijuana
Relevant Legal concepts
The relevant legal concepts include issuance of a warrants; this is in cases of arrests and searches.
For an arrest and search warrant to be issued a probable cause to believe that an offence had been
committed. An arrest warrant must contain the defendants name and also describe the offence
charged in the complaint. This is provided in Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure.
A search warrant to search or seize a persons property must be issued before the search can
happen. It must also identify the person and property to be searched. This is provided in Rule 41
of the Federal rules of criminal procedure.
Rationale
A law should not apply retrogressively; if a person is charged with criminal offence the law that
applies is one that is applicable at the time of committing the offence. If the criminal procedure
code does not provide for such an offence then a person cannot be charged with an offence that
does not exist in law. In this case Kurt committed the offence of loud noise at a time when there
was inexistence of a law prohibiting noise; thus there was no offence committed.
Accordingly on the discovery of marijuana the officer had entered Kurt’s premises without his
consent; he did not have a search warrant and therefore could not seize the marijuana he had found.
An arrest warrant applies to only the crime that is described on it. Therefore the officer did not
have the right to arrest Kurt on the basis of marijuana discovery unless he got a search and arrest
warrant for the same.

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/4

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 4 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
CASE ANALYSIS: FACTS PATTERNS 1 Case Analysis: Fact Patterns Author Institution CASE ANALYSIS: FACTS PATTERNS 2 State vs Kurt Issues In this case the main issues include; 1. Whether the noise ordinance could be applied retrogressively to Kurt. 2. Whether the search of Kurt’s premises by the officer was legal. 3. Whether the officer could arrest Kurt on the discovery of marijuana Relevant Legal concepts The relevant legal concepts include issuance of a warrants; this is in cases of arrests and searches. For an arrest and search warrant to be issued a probable cause to believe that an offence had been committed. An arrest warrant must contain the defendants name and also describe the offence charged in the complaint. This is provided in Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure. A search warrant to search or seize a person’s property must be issued before the search can happen. It must also identify the person and property to be searched. This is provided in Rule 41 of the Federal rules of criminal procedure. Rationale A law should not apply retrogressively; if a person is charged with criminal offence the law that applies is one that is applicable at the time of co ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Really useful study material!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Documents