Criminology?????????????????

Question by kayta k: criminology?????????????????
The warrants were granted. The arrest warrants for Mendoza and Manning particularly described the individuals to be arrested. The search warrant gave the street address, and indicated that the objects to be seized were drugs, drug related paraphernalia, hard copy pays and owes [notations of narcotic transactions], cash, and weapons.
You and a team from the Drug Interdiction Task Force deployed to the Manning residence shortly after noon on November 14. When you approached the front door you found that it was partially open. You could see approximately sixty well dressed citizens of Fresno, many of whom were recognizable to you. They had gathered around the pool and were enjoying the hospitality of the event.
Rather than knocking on the door and announcing your presence and purpose, you immediately entered with the remaining officers, and ordered everyone present to “freeze.” Mendoza was easily identified and arrested at a temporary bar located near the pool. A search of his person revealed a .40 Glock automatic, and a vial containing power cocaine in one of his pockets.
When asked where Manning was, Mendoza replied, “in his office,” and nodded toward an area down a hallway. You proceeded in that direction while other officers looked in closets, under beds, and behind drapes and furniture for persons who might represent a danger or interfere with the execution of the warrants.
You found Manning seated at a desk working on a lap top computer. He was handcuffed, and taken to a waiting police vehicle. After he was removed you went through his desk, and a briefcase which contained only a spiral notebook and what appeared to be some legal files. The briefcase and laptop were seized and taken to the property division.
In accordance with a protocol which you had established and announced to law enforcement participants, all of those present were temporarily seated and handcuffed, much to the chagrin of the Director of the Fresno Philharmonic, the President of the Chamber of Commerce, and the Chairman of Fres-Yes who was to present a bid for the 2014 Winter Olympics. All protested loudly about their treatment and promised retribution.
Those who identified themselves as security personnel were frisked. The process resulted in the recovery of a number of hand guns and other miscellaneous weapons.
A check of “wants and warrants” for those present revealed an outstanding traffic warrant for one hospitality worker. She was arrested, and a search of her apron resulted in the recovery of a small quantity of marijuana.
Charmaigne Manning was found in a bedroom she described as her own which had only feminine décor. Beside her was a small bowl with a powdery substance believed to be cocaine. She was taken into custody for possession.
Gradually, the guests were identified and allowed to depart.
A systematic search of the home failed to reveal any contraband, but entry into a door for what turned out to be the maid’s quarters resulted in the discovery of 10 kilos of marijuana.
On the driveway to the property officers searched Mendoza’s red Cadillac Escalade, and found another 10 kilos of marijuana in the trunk together with the $ 10,000 of marked buy money.
At the jail, during the booking procedures, you went through the briefcase again, with particular interest in the spiral bound notebook. In its pages were notations relating to a number of criminal offenses including jury tampering, corruption, and bribery. The laptop contained records of various drug related transactions together with a memorandum indicating that 20 kilos were to be delivered to Medrano on November 14.

TFUnder the logic and reasoning in United States v Leon, your
search of the entire premises at 3297 Oak Ridge was in
objective good faith.
Which of the following can be searched pursuant to a warrant which describes
the premises in question by a street address.
A.The residence
B.Any outbuildings within the curtilage
C.Any car parked on the property
D.All of the above
TFThe search of the hostess violated Fourth Amendment standards
because the warrant did not provide for her search.

Best answer:

Answer by Nightrider
Looking at the search warrant and what it entails, the correct answer would be “D”, all of the above. Drugs, paraphernalia, records and weapons could be anywhere on the property. No fourth amendment rights were violated on the hostess since she resided on the residence of the search warrant. The warrant was not listed for an individual, but for a property and all within.

I hope this helps and you can find it useful

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

DEA Continues California Crackdown As It Faces Million Lawsuit Over …

Filed under: Fresno Drug Treatment

DEA San Diego Acting Special Agent-In-Charge William R. Sherman said in a statement Wednesday that he was troubled by the treatment of Daniel Chong and extends his "deepest apologies" to him. US Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Darrell Issa each …
Read more on Cannabis Culture