Analysis of Fact Pattern Case Study
This case study examines Officer Chris’s investigation into a jewelry store theft, focusing on the legality of her search and seizure. While executing a valid search warrant for the first floor, she exceeded its scope by searching the second floor without probable cause. This led to an inadmissible firearm under the exclusionary rule. However, spontaneous statements made by the suspect remain admissible, highlighting key legal principles regarding search warrants, probable cause, and custodial interrogation.
References
Matt, M. (2020). In the age of decriminalization, is the odor of marijuana alone enough to justify a warrantless search? SSRN Electronic Journal. Web.
Walker, J. T., & Hemmens, C. (2019). Search and seizure with a warrant. Legal Guide for Police, 89-107. Web.
Com. v. Gommer. (n.d.). Justia Law. Web.
Bryan, I. (2019). undefined. Interrogation and Confession, 105-124. Web.
Milligan, L. (2018). Police transparency and the exclusionary rule. SSRN Electronic Journal. Web.
Reference
StudyCorgi. (2025, February 12). Analysis of Fact Pattern Case Study. https://studycorgi.video/analysis-of-fact-pattern-case-study/