• Law
College

Welcome to the article While the agents were present at 313 N E Brook Joe a neighbor directed them to a shed on his property which he had permitted. On this page, you will learn the essential and logical steps to better understand the topic being discussed. We hope the information provided helps you gain valuable insights and is easy to follow. Let’s begin the discussion!

While the agents were present at 313 N.E. Brook, Joe, a neighbor, directed them to a shed on his property, which he had permitted the 313 residents to use. The agents searched the shed and found marijuana. The crime lab compared known fingerprints of the 313 residents to those on the marijuana wrappings, and the fingerprints matched.

Should a judge allow the marijuana and fingerprint evidence?

a. No, because the agents did not obtain a search warrant to search Joe's shed.
b. No, because the evidence found in the shed was tainted by the search from the house at 313.
c. Yes, because the evidence in the shed was a result of the search at 313.
d. Yes, because the evidence in the shed was obtained from a consent search separate from the search of 313.

Answer :

(d) Yes, because the evidence in the shed was obtained from a consent search separate from the search of 313.

In this scenario, the search of Joe's shed was lawful because it was based on Joe's consent. According to the Fourth Amendment, searches and seizures typically require a warrant unless there is valid consent from someone with the proper authority over the premises.

In this case, Joe granted permission to search the shed, making the evidence found, and subseque()nt fingerprint comparison, admissible in court.

Thank you for reading the article While the agents were present at 313 N E Brook Joe a neighbor directed them to a shed on his property which he had permitted. We hope the information provided is useful and helps you understand this topic better. Feel free to explore more helpful content on our website!

Rewritten by : Brahmana