Question

QUESTION 29 Morrison, a suspected drug smuggler, is taken to a special airport search room, where he is subjected to a complete strip search, in which no illegal drugs were discovered anywhere on his body or in his clothes. Morrison was then taken into a supervisor's office, where an official United States customs inspector talked to him while his luggage was being re-examined. At no time was Morrison told of his constitutional rights. During the session with the inspector, Morrison confessed to having illegal drugs hidden in his coat he was wearing. Morrison was charged with several drug trafficking offenses. At trial, the prosecution wishes to introduce into evidence the confession and the illegal drugs seized at the scene Morrison's attorney makes a motion to suppress the confession and the drugs. As the Judge hearing the case, would you grant or deny the motion to suppress the confession and drugs? Cite any case(s) to support your position TTI Arial ▼ T._._ , 3(12pt)

Answer 1

Motion to suppress is a procedure that is utilized by the lawyer of the safeguard to ensure the denounced by saying that it s the likelihood that the charged has given the admission in the weight of police recognition. The police have not recouped itself the proof to demonstrate him a medication provider and the proof has been given by the Morrison under the weight of the examination group. Henceforth, it could be likewise said that the court ought to likewise concentrate on the extra region of examination. On the off chance that Morrison won't give the medication, at that point the whole examination procedure couldn't characterize him as a medication provider since no one was discovered any proof against him amid the examination procedure. Based on these procedures, it could be expressed that the court should concede the movement of stifle the admission and medications. This is on the grounds that that there is a plausibility that the denounced was given the wrong medication to shield him from unlawful examination treatment. Then again, it is conceivable that the examination group was not portrayed him that the proof will use against him that is simply against the fourth and fifth revision.

The comparable circumstance was additionally displayed on account of "Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393 (1978)" in which the litigant brought up the issue against the warrant less examination of his property to gather the proof and court was conceded to the movement of concealment against the seizure confirmations . The examiners couldn't depict to their introduction of the examination procedure. For this situation, the court was likewise brought up certain issues to examination officers that are

•   Had the examination group depicted the lawful right of denounced?

•   Was there any motivation to stop him for examination?

•   Was there any court order?

•   Could the officer demonstrate that the seizure proof was comparative what they were looking?