California v carney. CALIFORNIA v. CARNEY 2022-12-07
California v carney Rating:
5,3/10
201
reviews
The strengths perspective is a social work approach that focuses on the strengths, abilities, and resources of individuals and communities rather than their deficits or problems. It is based on the belief that everyone has strengths and capabilities that can be utilized to overcome challenges and achieve personal and community goals. This approach emphasizes the importance of empowering individuals and communities to identify and build on their own strengths and capacities, rather than relying on external resources or interventions.
One of the main strengths of the strengths perspective is that it promotes a positive and hopeful view of individuals and communities. Rather than viewing people as helpless or dependent, the strengths perspective recognizes the inherent potential and resilience of individuals and communities. This approach helps to build confidence and self-esteem, as well as foster a sense of agency and empowerment.
Another key strength of the strengths perspective is that it takes a holistic approach to problem-solving. Rather than focusing solely on addressing specific problems or issues, the strengths perspective takes into account the broader context in which individuals and communities live and work. This approach recognizes that people are influenced by a wide range of factors, including social, economic, cultural, and environmental factors, and it seeks to understand and address these factors in a comprehensive and integrated way.
The strengths perspective also emphasizes the importance of collaboration and partnership in achieving positive outcomes. Rather than imposing solutions from the outside, this approach seeks to engage individuals and communities in the process of identifying and addressing their own needs and goals. By working together, individuals and communities are able to build on their own strengths and capacities and develop solutions that are tailored to their unique circumstances.
Overall, the strengths perspective is a valuable approach to social work that promotes a positive and empowering view of individuals and communities, takes a holistic and collaborative approach to problem-solving, and recognizes the inherent strengths and capabilities of people. By focusing on building on the strengths of individuals and communities, this approach has the potential to create lasting and meaningful change.
California v. Carney
Agent Williams took Carney into custody and took possession of the motor home. The high Court used the mobility and diminished privacy rationales together to justify a warrantless search in California v. Chief Justice Samuel Roberts, Retired, of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has expressed similar concerns. This willingness to search first and later seek justification has properly been characterized as "a decision roughly comparable in prudence to determining whether an electrical wire is charged by grasping it. Moreover, the principle of percolation encourages the lower courts to act as responsible agents in the process of development of national law.
Given the nature of an automobile in transit, the Court recognized that an immediate intrusion is necessary if police officers are to secure the illicit substance. The automobile exception has been developed to ameliorate the practical problems associated with the search of vehicles that have been stopped on the streets or public highways because there was probable cause to believe they were transporting contraband. Estreicher Sexton, New York University Supreme Court Project, A Managerial Theory of the Supreme Court's Responsibilities 1984 to be published in 59 N. Amicus implies that it also had bathing and toilet facilities, but the record is silent on the point. . In any case, some conflict among state courts on novel questions of the kind involved here is desirable as a means of exploring and refining alternative approaches to the problem. A car has little capacity for escaping public scrutiny.
The motor home was kept under surveillance during the entire hour and a half that defendant and the youth were inside. Тhе роlісе dіd nоt оbtаіn а wаrrаnt fоr thе аrrеst аnd subsеquеnt sеаrсh. Citing the more recent Pennsylvania v. Illinois, 19 Respondent urges us to distinguish his vehicle from other vehicles within the exception because it was capable of functioning as a home. Тhе оffісеrs knосkеd оn thе dооr оf thе mоbіlе hоmе, іdеntіfіеd thеmsеlvеs, аnd еntеrеd wіthоut а wаrrаnt оr соnsеnt.
People v. Carney (1983) :: :: Supreme Court of California Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: US Law :: Justia
Thus, to the extent the People relied on the protective sweep theory, it was their burden to show that the officers were aware of specific, articulable facts from which they could reasonably infer other suspects were in the motor home. Respondent renewed his suppression motion in the Superior Court. This is not to say, of course, that had the youth stated defendant was alone, the officers would have been required to trust his response. He told them that he had received marihuana in return for allowing respondent sexual contacts. As an unusually perceptive study of this Court's docket stated with reference to California v. .
Photographs in the record indicate that its height, length, and beam provided substantial living space inside: stuffed chairs surround a table; cupboards provide room for storage of personal effects; bunk beds provide sleeping space; and a refrigerator provides ample space for food and beverages. Саrnеу mоvеd tо suррrеss thе еvіdеnсе dіsсоvеrеd іn thе wаrrаntlеss sеаrсh оf thе mоtоr hоmе, аnd thе trіаl соurt dеnіеd thе mоtіоn. Here, while respondent's vehicle possessed some attributes of a home, it clearly falls within the vehicle exception. . It is not necessary for the Court to resolve every unanswered question in this area in a single case, but common English usage suggests that we already distinguish between a "motor home" which is "equipped as a self-contained traveling home," a "camper" which is only equipped for "casual travel and camping," and an automobile which is "designed for passenger transportation.
Wellington and John W. The California Supreme Court held that the expectations of privacy in a motor home are more like those in a dwelling than in an automobile because the primary function of motor homes is not to provide transportation but to "provide the occupant with living quarters. A subsequent search of the motor home at the police station revealed additional marihuana in the cupboards and refrigerator. As we have noted herein, the burden is on the People to establish that a warrantless search was justified under an exception to the warrant requirement. When a motor home is parked in a location that is removed from the public highway, I believe that society is prepared to recognize that the expectations of privacy within it are not unlike the expectations one has in a fixed dwelling. In some cases, the configuration of the vehicle contributed to the lower expectations of privacy; for example, we held in Cardwell v.
Motor homes, by their common use and construction, afford their owners a substantial and legitimate expectation of privacy when they dwell within. The court observed that the mobility "exception" required probable cause and exigency, and that "the increased measure of privacy that may be expected by those aboard a vessel mandates careful scrutiny both of probable cause for the search and the exigency of the circumstances excusing the failure to secure a warrant. What precisely are "motor homes"? Respondent was charged with possession of marihuana for sale. With few exceptions, the courts have not hesitated to apply the vehicle exception to vehicles other than automobiles. This exception to the warrant requirement was first set forth by the Court 60 years ago in Carroll v. The agents broke into the trunk of the car and discovered contraband and substances used in the manufacture of contraband. New Hampshire, 403 U.
Accordingly, the search was valid. Without a warrant or consent, one agent then entered the motor home and observed marihuana. Lovenguth, United States v. Hanoian, San Diego, Cal. After 75 minutes, Williams saw the boy leave the home. Five hours later, narcotics agents arrived and searched the motor home without a warrant. III 21 The question remains whether, apart from the lack of a warrant, this search was unreasonable.
Agent Williams had previously received uncorroborated information that the same motor home was used by another person who was exchanging marihuana for sex. The agents identified themselves as law enforcement officers. Moreover, to fail to apply the exception to vehicles such as a motor home would ignore the fact that a motor home lends itself easily to use as an instrument of illicit drug traffic or other illegal activity. The appeals court disagreed with Carney, but the California Supreme Court agreed. Miller 1983 Bird, C. In some cases, the configuration of the vehicle contributed to the lower expectations of privacy; for example, we held in Cardwell v. Here, while respondent's vehicle possessed some attributes of a home, it clearly falls within the vehicle exception.
