Legalitites of Legal Actions Situation

Published 03 Jan 2017

1: Illinois State Trooper Glass

What improper procedure was used by the officers that caused the defense lawyers to appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court?

State Trooper Glass overlooked one important circumstance. According to Crimes Act of 1914,” a constable must not take identification material (other than hand prints, finger prints, foot prints or toe prints) from a suspect who is at least 10 but under 18, or is incapable of managing his affairs; and has not been arrested or charged.” (“Crimes Act 1914 – Sect 3zj”)

We can clearly see that they didn’t follow this procedure. Prior to the arrest of the defendant, Trooper Glass was able to get a photograph of the person who sold him the heroine, even though there are no arrests yet. The defense’ appeal to the Supreme Court is legitimate action because the acquisition of the photograph or the identification material is illegal.

The evidence of the in-court identification is allowed, making State Trooper Glass a witness of this case. Also, it could be used against the defendant because Glass identified him as the one who sold the prohibited drug to him. Also, the defendant’s conviction for selling heroin will be affirmed because of the presence of a witness, wherein it could be used as evidence against him, if Glass could possible pin point him as the one who sold him the heroin.

Situation 2: Police officer vs. Jimez

Did the consent to search authorize opening the brown bag?

When it involves letters and sealed package, a warrant less search and seizure of such items are illegal and unreasonable.” Under the Constitution of the United States, the Fourth Amendment provides protection of letters and other sealed packages because they are in the general class of effects in which the public at large has a legitimate expectation of privacy; warrant less searches of such items are presumptively unreasonable; there is so even when the letters and sealed packages are sent by a private carrier.” (“Richard Allen Duck V. State of Arkansas”)

Clearly, the police officer made a mistake and overlooked the circumstances at hand. Even though you are permitted to search the whole car, it still restricts you from opening sealed packages. This is clear violations of other people’s rights to privacy have been stepped over and ignored (Boone).

The evidence could be permitted to be used against the defendant because it is another legal case, the possession of illegal drugs. It could be used against the defendant because it is inside the defendant’s property which is the car, and possession of prohibited drugs is another issue.

Situation 3: Lorenz’s Tax Problems

Should the U.S. Supreme Court hold that the evidence of the tape recorder was properly used in the federal trial of Lorenz?

The evidence held in the tape recorder was not properly used for the federal trial of Lorenz. According to the federal rule of evidence 901 in a part regarding the voluntary elicitation of the recorded conversation; “as long as one participant in the conversation is aware that he is being recorded, the tape fulfills this requirement. This means that a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the conversation is electronically monitored by a government agent with consent of the government informant in the investigation. “(Cain)

In Lorenz’s case, he was recorded without due information and it was shown when he was already in court. Because of this, Lorenz was wrongfully tried, where the evidence of the recorded conversation was used against him.

The Supreme Court should affirm Lorenz’s conviction of bribery because it is strengthened by the presence of the recorded conversation between them and the tax agent. It was also strengthened when he lied under the oath to tell nothing but the truth, he lied about the bribery, and that is where the recorded conversation comes in (“K9 Sniffs of Vehicles”).

Situation 4: Passive Alcohol Sensor

Does use of this device, which could be called a “sense-enhancing” device because it enables an officer to sense something otherwise possible without the device, constitute a search under United States vs. Kyllo?

Using the Passive Alcohol Sensor (PAS) in order to know whether the driver is driving while intoxicated is a search just like the situation of Kyllo, wherein his house was put under surveillance, and a thermal imaging device was used to prove that inside his house, he was growing marijuana (“Kyllo V. United States”).

In these cases, the government used a machine or a device which is not common in our usual materials, in order to search for evidences. It is unconstitutional to search his house using thermal imaging device without a warrant, because his was a private home, so the intrusion would be subjected to as invasion of privacy.

Using PAS is different compared to Kyllo’s case because you are involved with a possible abuser of alcoholic substances, wherein it alters the frame of mind of people. Using PAS is acceptable especially in order to find out who’s intoxicated or not without asking or smelling them


  • Boone, Kevin. “Police Search: Know Your Rights”. 2006.
  • Cain, Steve. “Sound Recordings as Evidence in Court Proceedings”. 2006. <>.
  • “Crimes Act 1914 – Sect 3zj”. 2001. .
  • “K9 Sniffs of Vehicles”. 2005. .
  • “Kyllo V. United States”. 2005. .
  • “Richard Allen Duck V. State of Arkansas”. 2001. .
Did it help you?