The Court of Appeal sided with the previous convictions, sentences, denial of a suppression motion, and affirmation of the prosecutor’s closing remarks.
Question details: Guided Response: Respond to at least two of your peers’ posts (as well as any comments made by your instructor) in a substantive manner and provide information or concepts that they may not have considered. Each response should have a minimum of 100 words. Support your position by using information from the week’s readings. You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful and interactive discourse in this discussion forum. Continue to monitor the discussion forum until Day 7 and respond with robust dialogue to anyone who replies to your initial post. COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSION Preston Anderson Preston Anderson Monday Dec 7 at 6:35pm Search and Seizure The Court of Appeal sided with the previous convictions, sentences, denial of a suppression motion, and affirmation of the prosecutor’s closing remarks. They agreed that the search and seizure was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, as the commercial lane, surrounding area, and dumpster were not portrayed as private property, given the lack of signs and the distance the dumpster was away from the building. The court argued that the dumpster was not considered part of the curtilage, which is the area of a private residence that contains the intimate activities associated with the owner. Given that the dumpster was not located in the curtilage, a search warrant was not necessary, and thus the evidence in the dumpster could be utilized by the prosecutors (United States v. Hall, 1995).Dumpster on Private Property In the hearing, they determined that for an organization to ensure that an area is part of its “business curtilage,” the organization would need to take affirmative steps to limit the public’s accessibility of the property (United States v. Hall, 1995). Whereas for a private residence, the definition of curtilage does not require affirmative steps to privatize the area. If the private owner used the street and dumpster for their private use, it could be considered curtilage based on the intimate area used daily. Curtilage also includes sealed containers on one’s property; the dumpster and bagged papers would be considered sealed (Langvardt et al., 2019, p. 162). In this case, one could argue that a search warrant was required, and the evidence may be denied. Recommendations for Bet-Air The dumpster should first be relocated closer to the business building to ensure that it is clear to anyone that the dumpster is private and further meet the definition of “immediate surrounding area” for establishing curtilage (Langvardt et al., 2019, p. 162). The dumpster should also be placed under an enclosure next to the building to meet further curtilage requirements (United States v. Hall, 1995). Signs should be placed around the dumpster and on the street to establish the area’s private residency. If the signs do not detour the public, placing a private gate at the entrance may be necessary. References Langvardt, A. W., Barnes, A. J., Prenkert, J. D., McCrory, M. A., & Perry, J. E. (2019). Business law: The ethical, global, and e-commerce environment (17th ed.). Retrieved from https://www.vitalsource.comUnited States v. Hall, 47 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 1995)Number of pages: 1 Powerpoint slides:
Answer preview to the Court of Appeal sided with the previous convictions, sentences, denial of a suppression motion, and affirmation of the prosecutor’s closing remarks.
APA
168 words
