Criminology

In the case of Billy presented to me, I have prepared a defense for him which I believe will be successful as there are several things I have observed in the case presented that could lead to the dismissal of the case against Billy.

In the given case, Billy could put up the defense that the evidence against him was obtained in violation of his basic constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures and therefore is dismissible in court. The search in his car neither was without warrant nor was it conducted with his consent. Wallys permission for the police officer to search Billys car could not be considered as that of the latter.

The general rule is that houses and cars can only be searched and things be seized if there is a valid warrant applied in the particular case. Defense could now cite jurisprudence established in the now famous Rochin vs. California (Taylor, 2009). A valid search warrant in fact should particularly describe the place to be searched and things to be seized. In Billys case, no valid search warrant was presented as the search and seizure appears to be random as in fact the car is certainly just one of the many cars in the parking lot. There is no mention of any suspicious activity done and the two people involved have not committed any offense that could mad the car the object of attention.

As for the case of Larceny presented against him, defense could be put up that he was a buyer in good faith and for value he believes is right from a person he trusted and personally knows. The person was his friend and was no random stranger. Likewise, the defendants was not in any way engaged in any buying and selling business prior to the incident or having any records of buying stolen goods.