- Brinegar v. United States case brief summary
- Brinegar had a reputation for carrying illegal liquor. One day Malsded saw him in his car and knew of his reputation. He saw the car was heavily loaded and weighed down. He testified that he saw a case on the seat
- A valid search of a vehicle moving on a public highway may be had without a warrant, but only if there is probable cause
- Difference from Carroll: the cops in Carroll had 3 months of investigation where here it was just personal observation from Malsded
- Only source of probable cause is his previous criminal history
- Goes against rules of evidence and promotes “once a criminal always a criminal”
- Inadmissible evidence can be used to determine if probable cause existed!!
- Doesn’t matter! Even though it was his personal observation he had the same probable cause as in Carroll pg. 128
- Probable cause “reasonable ground for belief of guilt”
- We need to allow for mistakes but reasonable mistakes. Allowing a higher standard would unduly hamper law enforcement
- This is a search because it was a physical search of an effect.
- The casebook is full of the guilty,
- When the innocent gets searched there is no proper redress, we would never hear about it.
- If we promote random searches it will affect innocent and guilty alike.
Sunday, January 13, 2019
Brinegar v. United States case brief
Image Source Have you ever considered a career where each day offers a new challenge and the chance to make a real difference? Studying cr...
Class 1: Elements of Fundamental Value: Present Value, Future Value, Net Present Value: Elements of Fundamental Value (38) One year : ...
I can help you land in the top 10% of your law school class. Imagine, how your life would be different if you were in the top 10% o...
Corthell v. Summit Thread Company (1933) · Facts: Corthell is a salesman for Summit. He invents contraption that is bought b...