He took a single picture of the defendant without the accompaniment of Mr. Glover, the alleged buyer. He only relied on the description given to him by Mr. Glover. This is another hitch; what if there is another person who resembles the defendant and may be is the one who sold the alleged heroin to Glover It is hard for the officer to prove that the picture he took was actually of the person Glover described. Glover admits that he had neither met the defendant nor had he seen him before, this also makes his positive identification of the defendant challengeable in court of appeal.
In short, the procedure the officer used to obtain evidence of the case is improper according to the US federal constitution. The defendant lawyer can argue that the evidence given is inadmissible since it is derived by Glover pretence to lure his client to commit a crime. The US criminal penal code states that; .."Whenever evidence is objected to as inadmissible because it was discovered as a result of or otherwise derived from compelled testimony or evidence, the burden shall be upon the person offering the challenged evidence to establish a source independent of the compelled testimony or evidence"( Sec. 54-47a).
Since the court relied on evidence given by Mr. ...
It should be noted that the defence lawyer has all the right to apply for rejection of any information or evidence given under the U.S Federal criminal penal code. The federal court can upon motion by the defence lawyer at any time dismiss any information and order defendant discharged. (Sec.54-56 ).
According to U.S Federal criminal penal code, the officer investigating a crime or a suspect is supposed to obtain a search warrant in order to search the premise or property of the suspect. In addition, he is also supposed to request for suspect's consent to search his property. In some cases, a search warrant is not required, especially when consent is given by a person in control of the premises or when the evidence is in plain view. When police make an arrest, they are also permitted to conduct a search, such as for weapons or other danger. Searches are also allowed in emergency situations where the public is at risk. In this case we are not told about the search warrant granted to the officer who acted on a tip off that Jimeno might be carrying narcotics in his car. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant)
The defendant allowed the officer to search his car. The consent to search the car include the closures there in. Therefore the brown bag containing the cocaine is part and parcel of the defendant car since is found inside his car. The Supreme Court erred in its ruling since the officer only searched inside the car of the defendant and not outside. To rule that the consent does not extend to closed containers inside the car goes against the evidence found in Jimeno car. We might also not allow the use of the cocaine found inside the brown bag as evidence since what