United States vs Burke case Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

United States vs Burke case - Essay Example While walking a foot patrol, PO Charles Brown and his partner, PO Schroeder are approached by a woman, named Peppermint Patty, who tells them that her boyfriend, Linus Van Pelt, just beat her up and threatened to kill her.She then tells the police that he has drugs and guns in the apartment. The police asked her where her boyfriend was and she told them, "He's home, come with me." Patty takes the officers to a building three blocks away and brings them to an apartment. The police officers knock on the door and another woman answer the door. The police ask if Linus is home and the woman says that he just went to the store to get a pack of cigarettes. The police ask if they can come in and the woman says yes. While they are in, Patty tells the police officers that the woman is Linus's sister. Lucy. PO Brown asks Lucy if Linus keeps drugs and guns in the house. Lucy says, "I never saw any guns or drugs." PO Schroeder says, "So if I looked around I wouldn't find anything illegal here" Lu cy tells him that would be true. The police officers then remove the cushions from the couch and find two .38 caliber revolvers. They open a hallway closet and find three bags of cocaine hidden under some sheets and towels. Linus returns home and he and his sister are arrested. The defendants make a motion to suppress the evidence recovered from the apartment. Discuss the search and seizure issues involved and decide the motion. In United States v Burke (1963, DC Mass) 215 F Supp 508, affd (CA1 Mass) 328 F2d 399, cert den 379 US 849, 13 L Ed 2d 52, 85 S Ct 91, reh den 380 US 927, 13 L Ed 2d 815, 85 S Ct 902, a prosecution for mail robbery and conspiracy to rob the mails, it was held that the consent of the accused's landlady did not justify the warrantless search of the accused's apartment. The evidence disclosed that in response to persistent ringing of the doorbell of the accused's apartment, the landlady opened her door, advised the officers that the accused was not at home, and offered to let the officers inspect his room. The evidence further disclosed that the officers searched the room, ascertained that the accused was not present, and observed a postal uniform jacket, but left the room without seizing it. The court held that the search was illegal since the officers had neither a search warrant nor probable cause to arrest the accused. Denying the accused's motion to suppress various items of evidenc e, however, the court stated that since the officers at the time of the search already knew that the accused had recently acquired a letter carrier's uniform, no new evidence was discovered during this illegal search, so that the "fruit of the poison tree" doctrine had no application to the search. In United States v Paroutian (1962, CA2 NY) 299 F2d 486, the warrantless search of the accused's apartment was held to be invalid, and a subsequent seizure of narcotics and a letter based upon information discovered in the search, were held to be inadmissible against the accused, where the only authority the officers had for conducting the search was the apparent consent of the agent of the owner of the apartment building. The evidence disclosed that the agent accompanied the officers while they conducted the search, and that the accused was not in the residence at the time. Noting that it was unclear whether the accused had paid the rent for the month in which the search was conducted, the court stated that at the time of the search there was no indication that the accused did not intend to return to the apartment. Noting that the landlord made no efforts to evict the accused until several weeks after the search, the court stated that the accused was legitimately on the premises and was entitled to invoke the right of privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Here, neither Peppermint Patty nor Lucy had the authority (at least on these facts) to allow the police into Linus' apartment to search the premises. Any evidence found as a result of the illegal search in the apartment must be suppressed.