Part Seven-Dissent

Part Seven – Dissent
There was a justice who was not for the decision at all, as well:

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens joins, dissenting.

“I agree that the Court's per curiam opinion correctly states the law, but because respondent's counsel is not a member of this Court's bar and did not wish to become one, respondent has not filed a brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari. I believe we should not summarily reverse in a criminal case, irrespective of the merits, where the respondent is represented by a counsel unable to file a response, without first inviting an attorney to file a brief as amicus curiae in response to the petition for certiorari. For this reason, I dissent.”

I totally agree that they should have not dropped a reverse on a criminal case as well. I believe that many people, other than Stevens felt the same way. Not only did they disappoint me, but they made me feel and think about what kind of nation we are living under. Are we all just playing against the rules? What if the rule does not protect us from the safety that we claim to have in the United States? The evidence was there, and the rules obviously showed that it would be wrong in that situation.

Part 6- My Own Argument

Part 6 – My Own Argument

Honestly, I have to disagree with the ruling. There is hard evidence that the case was allowed to throw the dealer in prison, and have that settled. But having the case reversed and to issue them a petition, does not make any sense to me. I understand fully, everything about the fourth amendment and I respect that decision, but the police could have been easily punished as well to an extent for that situation, and give them some sort leeway because they actually had the probable cause, reacted fast enough for their evidence to be correct. I would actually grant them the vehicle search and the automobile exception and just leave it at that.

Obviously, with that type of situation, drug dealers and victims of it, will run and hide once they know that the police is out to get them. They will run, and run fast if the police will not react faster. I am personally not for drugs. I believe it is useless, pointless, and I hate it because it kills people, and some of my loved ones are addicted to them. They need to be contraband, and we need to start by busting all the providers of these drugs. The ruling was shown that there was hard evidence of the drug dealer, and there was no other reaction to it. The issue totally turned around to it being about the search warrant, that we could enforce!

Part 5- Rule of Law

Part 5 -Rule of Law

According to what the Courts have agreed upon of the case, they have used previous cases as a resource, which was previously stated. In a nutshell, since the case of Kevin Dyson was that there was probable cause against him, driving in and out of state, buying illegal, contraband drugs, and selling them illegally to the public, police react to arrest him and throw him into court. Before hand, police stop Dyson, and search his vehicle, find the contraband, and bust him with an arrest. Police did have enough time to issue a search warrant to actually avoid all this mess they have to go through, because police did not issue a search warrant at the time of the scene.

So as they used the previous cases as a resource to help them use for their decision, they have used not only cases, but also amendments as well. The fourth amendment states that, “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://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/ Which has also helped the come up with the decision.

Part 4-Reasoning of the Court

Part 4- Reasoning of the Court

Upon coming to a decision, the court used previous trials to help them come up with the decision for this case. “We made this clear in United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 809 (1982), when we said that in cases where there was probable cause to search a vehicle "a search is not unreasonable if based on facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, even though a warrant has not been actually obtained." http://law.onecle.com/ussc/527/527us467.html

Since the police brought up another case to use as an alibi, they brought up the case of Ross and Labron. That case stated that, “The holding of the Court of Special Appeals that the "automobile exception" requires a separate finding of exigency in addition to a finding of probable cause is squarely contrary to our holdings in Ross and Labron.” http://law.onecle.com/ussc/527/527us467.html

Although the court knew how bad the case looked upon them reversing it, they used previous cases as resources and saw what was fair. The court did grant them petition for certiorari, and reverse for a reason and had their evidence and resources to back them up on it. Logically, it did not take the courts to decide very long, so I believe they did a very good job.

Part 3-Decision of the Court

Part 3- Decision of the Court
About ten years ago, the decision was made on June 21, 1999 stating that the decision was reversed. At first, the court was for the victim being caught with illegal drugs, but once the victim has came up with examples and brought out the fourth amendment for the search warrant, the case was reversed. The police had turned to the automobile exception act for them to search the vehicle without a warrant, but the police did not provide any other hard evidence other than them having probable cause that the victim had the cocaine.

The outcome of the case was that they reversed everything, and a brief was not made. They are holding Dyson’s drug addiction for an automobile exception to the fourth amendment. Because of all of this, the court grants the petition for certiorari and reverse.

“Applying this rule to the facts of the case, the Court of Special Appeals concluded that although there was "abundant probable cause," the search violated the Fourth Amendment because there was no exigency that prevented or even made it significantly difficult for the police to obtain a search warrant. Id., at 426, 712 A. 2d, at 579. The Maryland Court of Appeals denied certiorari. 351 Md. 287, 718 A. 2d 235 (1998). We grant certiorari and now reverse.” http://law.onecle.com/ussc/527/527us466.html

“In this case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that the Fourth Amendment requires police to obtain a search warrant before searching a vehicle which they have probable cause to believe contains illegal drugs.” http://law.onecle.com/ussc/527/527us465.html

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.

Supreme Court

In the case of Maryland vs Dyson, specific concepts and terms such as probable causes, warrants, convictions and amendments were used in the case. These terms are used because of what the case actually is about. The case is about the drug dealer bringing illegal drugs from state to state, smuggling and selling to the public, and once the dealer was caught from the police, the police searched his vehicle and him, without pursuing to show the dealer a search warrant after requesting one. They had probable evidence and a probable cause to search the vehicle and the dealer, but did not pursue a warrant, which he had made a case before the court.

“In this case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that the Fourth Amendment requires police to obtain a search warrant before searching a vehicle which they have probable cause to believe contains illegal drugs.”

This was said in the court and specifically describes the case before the court. I believe that through the amendment, the police should have been a lot more professional, and followed through with the laws and amendments.

http://law.onecle.com/ussc/527/527us466.html

EOC Week 8-Supreme Court Update

EOC-Week Eight
Update on Supreme Court: Maryland Versus Dyson
The update on Supreme Court Maryland Versus Dyson is that the fourth amendment is held toward police to require them to provide a search warrant for vehicles under a probable cause. Since the police had a probable cause to believe that the drug dealer victim was carrying illegal drugs, they should have an easy time to provide a search warrant before actually going through with the search of the car for cocaine. Since they did not show a search warrant to the victim, the case is now reversed. Supreme Court is enforcing the search warrant act to be put upon any time of search with a probable cause.

“The Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed, 122 Md. App. 413, 712 A. 2d 573 (1998), holding that in order for the automobile exception to the warrant requirement to apply, there must not only be probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is contained in the automobile, but also a separate finding of exigency precluding the police from obtaining a warrant. Id., at 424, 712 A. 2d, at 578. Applying this rule to the facts of the case, the Court of Special Appeals concluded that although there was "abundant probable cause," the search violated the Fourth Amendment because there was no exigency that prevented or even made it significantly difficult for the police to obtain a search warrant. Id., at 426, 712 A. 2d, at 579. The Maryland Court of Appeals denied certiorari. 351 Md. 287, 718 A. 2d 235 (1998). We grant certiorari and now reverse.”


http://law.onecle.com/ussc/527/527us466.html

Facts of Case-part 1

“In this case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that the Fourth Amendment requires police to obtain a search warrant before searching a vehicle which they have probable cause to believe contains illegal drugs. Because this holding rests upon an incorrect interpretation of the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, we grant the petition for certiorari and reverse.”

In the Maryland versus Dyson case, it is agreed that the police must show a search warrant and hard believable evidence to search a car that is believed to have illegal drugs. What brought this case up was a situation that happened with a hardcore drug dealer in Maryland, who had rented a car and drove to New York and was heard to be returning back to Maryland with a large amount of crack cocaine. Police had taken this information to be very believable, and took action to be on the look out for the specific red Toyota rental car. Little did they know, drug dealer returned back to Maryland in the rental car, and was stopped immediately by the sheriffs and the police. The vehicle was searched, and what was predicted to be found, was there. There were 23 grams of crack cocaine in the car, and victim was immediately arrested. But, according to the Fourth Amendment, searching the vehicle without any warrant, was a big mistake. So because of that, the case was reversed.

http://law.onecle.com/ussc/527/527us468.html