Sunday, January 13, 2019

United States v. Chadwick case brief

United States v. Chadwick case brief summary

Facts:

Police saw a footlocker being loaded onto a train that was heavy-looking and leaking talcum powder- something that masks weed smell

Police in Boston were alerted and waiting for the train with weed dogs when the train got there. Respondents took the locker down and without warning the police released the dogs and they found weed

They arrested them and took them to the station along with the locker. They had no reason to believe there were any explosives or dangerous materials in the locker and there were facilities where they could have stored it securely

They did not obtain consent or a warrant but opened the locker and found weed.

Unreasonable search:

They double-locked their locker and had a reasonable expectation of privacy

The government is arguing luggage is the same thing as a car - it's mobile.

Court: luggage has more expectation of privacy and does not have a regulation like cars.

There were no exigent circumstances - they could’ve gotten a warrant.

Personal luggage has more expectation of privacy than an automobile whose primary purpose is transportation.

Search is an incident to a lawful arrest only when there are exigent circumstances.

They couldn’t have got a weapon out of the package and they couldn’t have taken the drugs out and hid them.


***Follow us on Instagram: Instagram.com/law_school_case_briefs

1 comment:

  1. Another case where the cops need to get a warrant before getting their paws on your stuff. Classic!

    "A search is an incident to a lawful arrest only when there are exigent circumstances." Yes!

    Yet most people will say, "go ahead and search my car because you have a uniform and a badge."

    No! No! A Thousand Nos!

    ReplyDelete

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.