Question

Criminal Procedures.

Federal officers obtained a warrant to arrest Kateena Norman on charges of credit-card fraud and identity theft. Evidence of the crime included videos, photos, and a fingerprint on a fraudulent check. A previous search of Norman’s house had uncovered credit cards, new merchandise, and identifying information for other persons. An Internet account registered to the address had been used to apply for fraudulent credit cards, and a fraudulently obtained rental car was parked on the property. As the officers arrested Norman outside her house, they saw another woman and a caged pit bull inside. They further believed that Norman’s boyfriend, who had a criminal record and was also suspected of identify theft, could be there. In less than a minute, the officers searched only those areas within the house in which a person could hide.

1. Would it be reasonable to admit evidence revealed in this “protective sweep” during Norman’s trial on the arrest charges? Why?

Answer 1

True for this situation it is sensible to concede the discoveries as proof. Regularly search of private property is secured under US constitution and requires a court order yet in the event that there is sensible proof of possibility of mischief which might be brought about by an individual, at that point search of such an individual or property claimed by that individual is allowed to guarantee open great.

So for this situation discoveries revealed would be conceded as proof.