Legal Studies Predictions/Thoughts (5 Viewers)

[bas216]

question 18 re police legally eneter an adult suspects home

i picked a: consent from suspect is mandatory


but c: judicial oversight of police powers has occurred

what are we thinking.

judicial oversight means a search warrant has been granted by a court
it cant be consent bc think of a police raid

 

[civiclens]

You don't need consent if they have a warrant or reasonable suspicion, so since they are entering legally consent is not needed making the answer C

but the thing is, police can also legally enter a home if a suspect consents to it...

while judicial oversight does give a warrant, no warrant is mentioned.
very ambigious

 

[academic_reaper]

its c bro

Yess

 

[Reasonabledoubt]

but the thing is, police can also legally enter a home if a suspect consents to it...

while judicial oversight does give a warrant, no warrant is mentioned.
very ambigious

it says that the police legally search the persons house or whatever the word legally indicates that they have obtained a warrant

 

[civiclens]

it says that the police legally search the persons house or whatever the word legally indicates that they have obtained a warrant

it just says enter, nothing abt searching

 

[Reasonabledoubt]

it just says enter, nothing abt searching

oh i dont remember the exact words but to enter u still need to get a warrant

 

[oml]

question 18 re police legally eneter an adult suspects home

i picked a: consent from suspect is mandatory


but c: judicial oversight of police powers has occurred

what are we thinking.

It was the judicial oversight one 100% cause they need a warrant from them b4 —> separation of powers

 

[civiclens]

oh i dont remember the exact words but to enter u still need to get a warrant

"To enter a person’s home or any other private property without the invitation or consent of an occupier, the police must have a search warrant (except in emergency situations such as chasing an escaping suspect, or where there is apparently an assault occurring on the premises)"

idk. might be one of them two answer questions when nesa has a fuck up

 

[Reasonabledoubt]

the mc was worded that like the suspect would need to consent to the search as if that was the deciding factor whether they enter or not. which is not true because they legally can through a warrant without consent. idk i hope this makes sense? maybe they will accept both answers depending on their interpretation and the exact wording

 

[TheBlackMan23]

GG

 

[civiclens]

the mc was worded that like the suspect would need to consent to the search as if that was the deciding factor whether they enter or not. which is not true because they legally can through a warrant without consent. idk i hope this makes sense? maybe they will accept both answers depending on their interpretation and the exact wording

half of them were just word salads. they were worded so poorly

 

[oml]

"To enter a person’s home or any other private property without the invitation or consent of an occupier, the police must have a search warrant (except in emergency situations such as chasing an escaping suspect, or where there is apparently an assault occurring on the premises)"

idk. might be one of them two answer questions when nesa has a fuck up

but there was no emergency situation if there was they would’ve specified it I DONT think the exam writers are that stupid — normally judiciary oversight is needed istg it’s in my notes somewhere I just can’t find it

 

[Reasonabledoubt]

half of them were just word salads. they were worded so poorly

i know right i was thinking for a good 10 minutes for mc theyre purposely trying to trip people up

 

[civiclens]

but there was no emergency situation if there was they would’ve specified it I DONT think the exam writers are that stupid — normally judiciary oversight is needed istg it’s in my notes somewhere I just can’t find it

no. in emergencies they can enter w/o consent, otherwise they need consent

 

[Reasonabledoubt]

but there was no emergency situation if there was they would’ve specified it I DONT think the exam writers are that stupid — normally judiciary oversight is needed istg it’s in my notes somewhere I just can’t find it

yes judicial oversight is needed and i think c is 100% correct but maybe they can also accept a depending on the exact wording of the question

 

[Reasonabledoubt]

no. in emergencies they can enter w/o consent, otherwise they need consent

the mc did not specify it was an emergy and if they wanted us to pick a im pretty sure they wouldve specified it was an emergency

 

[civiclens]

the mc did not specify it was an emergy and if they wanted us to pick a im pretty sure they wouldve specified it was an emergency

emergencies have nothing to do with it. a related to someone consenting to the search, outside of an emergency situation

 

[oml]

no. in emergencies they can enter w/o consent, otherwise they need consent

yeah that’s what I meant but the question never stated an emergency situation, so I thought people generally just assumed its not on reasonable grounds to just enter without a valid reason such as domestic violence, murder etc. like there was no reason to enter without a warrant so wouldn’t it just be judicial oversight bc if its just searching without a warrant that’s abusing their powers under the act

 

[Reasonabledoubt]

emergencies have nothing to do with it. a related to someone consenting to the search, outside of an emergency situation

the mc situtaiton was framed that the police were conducting a legal search and to do that u need judicial oversight if it was a legal search (indicating a warrant) u dont need to have the person consent to it

 

[ilikemomo]

the mc situtaiton was framed that the police were conducting a legal search and to do that u need judicial oversight if it was a legal search (indicating a warrant) u dont need to have the person consent to it

so am i crazy for saying anything they take is admissible evidence