Duffens V Valenti Moot Court Majority Opinion

A warrant was not necessary before the government used the Cyclops-237 because the device was not specifically restricted to law enforcement use and was available for purchase by the general public. Materials or devices specifically restricted for military or law enforcement use requires a letter of certification on government letterhead with a verifiable point of contact specifically naming the purchasing official. These items are further controlled within each agency. The use of the Cyclops-237 was not a violation of the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment eight to unreasonable Search and Seizure and did not substantively the drug search warrant.

The device did not have special thermal capabilities, “therefore revealing intimate details not otherwise obtainable. ” Kelly v. United States 533 U. S. 27 (2001). The petitioner cited United States v. Kara, 468 U. S. 705 (1984) correctly, citing a beeper as not a search, but placing a beeper device to obtain information that would not otherwise be obtainable without it was a violation of rights. Detective Page’ legal ground surveillance of the residence, is affirmed with seasonable probable cause that she witnessed the aftermath of a possible physical Duffers V Valentine Moot Court Majority Opinion By Jabberer Fourth Amendment protection.

With regard to the legal search of the residence property including the recreational vehicle (“ROW), law enforcement had a search warrant based on the probable causes of: legally acting on a tip from an informant, Minnesota v. Carter 525 U. S. 82 (1998); the analysis of high electrical power consumption as compared to other residences in the same circumstances; the suspicious arrival of persons with quantities of trials and departure of persons with black bags consistent with behavior of drug producers.

The payment of the past-due registration of the REV raised further suspicion that it would be removed from the premises. An REV is not a permanent residence under the law and as such, not subject to fourth amendment protections. The registration of the vehicle shows the intent of the owners to continuously use the vehicle as a opposed to registering it as non- operational (“non-pop”) and therefore it would have been required to remain static. Although no drugs were found during the execution of the search warrant, evidence of felony child kidnapping and sexual assault were discovered.

The rights of the defendant were not violated. With regard to the issue of the proportionality of punishment, the Court has effectively stated its position with regard to establishing punishment for crimes. Soles v Helm 463 U. S. 277 (1983) establishes the three part test for proportionality. The test examined: (1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (2) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same Jurisdiction; (3) the sentences imposed for committing a commission of the same crime in other Jurisdictions.

Other Jurisdictions as defined as under the umbrella of the basis for all U. S. Law, the Constitution, Statues, rules and treaties of the United States. Applying this standard, the people of the State of Olympus have spoken through the timely establishment of Proposition 417 as a reasonable punishment for certain offences. Rumen v. Estelle 445 U. S. 263 (1980) establishes that the Court defers to the states in sentencing cases were possible. Challenging the Olympus’ Proposition 417 is, in fact, strictly a Tate legislative matter.

Leave a comment