Issues of the Case-Pt.2

Issue of the case -- what specific concepts and terms were involved – in other words, why is the case before the Court.

“In a brief, per curiam opinion, the Court reiterated its clear precedent that there is no separate exigency requirement for the search of an automobile. Law enforcement agents can search an automobile based solely on probable cause–there is no requirement that they first secure a search warrant. In holding to the contrary, the Court of Special Appeals squarely contravened binding precedent. Because there was abundant probable cause to search the automobile, Dyson's motion to suppress was properly denied.” http://sol.lp.findlaw.com/1998/dyson.html

In this case, the concepts were that the police specifically failed to provide a search warrant to the defendant, Kevin Dyson, for the search of the rental automobile. The police accused probable cause toward the defendant for having loads of cocaine initiating to sell to the public on him. This case is before the court because the police have failed and has violated the constitution’s fourth amendment.

In the constitution, the fourth amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Because the police did not provide Kevin Dyson with the search warrant, because the case was before the court was because he fought to believe that he was accused in the wrong way. Dyson had the right to be shown the search warrant prior to the vehicle search for cocaine. Kevin Dyson admitted to what he did wrong, but fought for the fourth amendment.