CRJ 200 WEEK 5 DISCUSSION

CRJ 200 WEEK 5 DISCUSSION  
The term reasonable expectation of privacy is a key one when it comes to the law of the 4th Amendment. There are certain things we all agree involve a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, your home, your telephone conversations, even if that conversation takes place in and enclosed phone booth. (I know a pay phone booth is a rare thing to find these days but it- an example from a US Supreme Court case.) Some things that we cannot claim a reasonable expectation of privacy in are things like your trash put out on the curb, where your vehicle drives as you travel on public roads, and conversations in public.
 Search warrants are a very common thing I encounter in my work. One of the issues that often arise is what we refer to as “staleness”. What that means is that if the information that the information that the officer is relying on is too old, it might not be sufficient to issue a search warrant. This is particularly true with drug sales warrants since dealers can run out of drugs or loads of drugs move. One type of crime we can sometimes get around staleness is possession of stolen property. Why do you think this is?
 Why do you think that a vehicle inventory search is an exception to the warrant requirement?
 Exclusionary Rule and identification:
 We know that there are safeguards for fair line-ups and photo arrays (what we call “6-packs” for the number of photos in a typical photo array) but what about a field “show-up” where just the one suspect is identified by a witness? Is it fair and can we consider an identification of a suspect who is identified by a witness in the field after the suspect has been