1. Reply Conner- vidence is defined by Gardner and Anderson (2016) as “the means

1. Reply Conner- vidence is defined by Gardner and Anderson (2016) as “the means of establishing and proving the truth or untruth of any fact that is alleged” (p. 78). This definition is purposefully broad because, in the field of criminal justice, there are many different types of evidence. During a criminal trial, the prosecution presents evidence they have collected to prove that the defendant truly committed the crime he or she has been accused of – while the defense presents evidence to prove the contrary. These pieces of evidence can include written or verbal statements, physical objects, fingerprints or DNA found at the crime scene, and many other material and non-material things. Evidence in criminal cases is either direct or circumstantial (Gardner & Anderson, 2016).
There are two ways police officers and other criminal justice officials can obtain evidence: with or without a warrant. When evidence is obtained without a warrant, the situation must still meet certain qualifications. Police and crime scene investigators can collect physical evidence at the scene of a crime without a warrant, such as fingerprints or DNA the suspect left behind (Gardner & Anderson, 2016). Also, police can speak to witnesses and bystanders to obtain possible identification evidence without a warrant. Finally, evidence in plain view or in places with no expectation of privacy can be seized without a search warrant. The plain view doctrine allows officers to seize evidence that is clearly visible from a location that they have the right to be in (Gardner & Anderson, 2016). For example, if the police pull someone over for a traffic violation and the officer sees illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia in the passenger seat of the car, they can seize whatever evidence they can see. If the same officer sees a firearm or other deadly weapon, they can seize the drugs and weapons and search the rest of the vehicle for other weapons. However, if the police pull someone over for a routine traffic stop and do not see anything illegal in the car, they would not have the right to search the car and collect any evidence without a warrant or probable cause to believe the driver committed a crime.
Because of the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, police need a probable cause for a search warrant in order to search people, private places like homes or vehicles, or a person’s belongings and collect evidence (Gardner & Anderson, 2016). An arrest warrant is required in order to detain a person and interrogate them to obtain confessional evidence (Gardner & Anderson, 2016). With the proper warrant, police officers can collect any evidence they can come across. However, even with a warrant, officers must still knock on the door to the premise and announce their presence before entering the place to be searched and seizing any evidence (Gardner & Anderson, 2016). The most common types of evidence seized with a warrant are physical evidence, such as weapons or drugs hidden in a person’s home or vehicle, and confessional evidence after an arrest.
WC – 505

Reference
Gardner, T. & Anderson, T. (2016). Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases (9th Ed.). Cengage Learning
2.
Meiser Carissa
CJL4133: Criminal Evidence and Procedure
Professor Hunziker
Week 4 CJ Chat
20 September 2023

The concept of “evidence” within criminal justice is foundational to the legal process. Evidence is the bedrock upon which decisions about guilt or innocence are made. In this discussion, we will explore the nature of evidence and the requirements for obtaining evidence both with and without a warrant. We will also provide examples of situations where evidence is often acquired without a warrant and when a warrant is legally mandated (Peterson & Sommers, 2010). Firstly, it is essential to define what constitutes evidence. In the legal context, evidence is information or material presented in court to prove or disprove facts relevant to a case. Evidence can take various forms, including physical objects, documents, witness testimony, and electronic data. It plays a pivotal role in establishing the credibility of allegations and the fault of individuals accused of criminal conduct.
When obtaining evidence with a warrant, the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution sets forth the requirements. To secure a warrant, law enforcement officers must demonstrate to a neutral magistrate or judge that there is probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime exists at a particular location. Probable cause requires a reasonable belief that a crime has been or is being committed and that the evidence sought will likely be found at the specified site (Tan, 2023). Once a warrant is issued, law enforcement officers are authorized to search the designated area and seize evidence that falls within the warrant’s scope.
Conversely, there are situations where evidence is obtained without a warrant. One such circumstance is when there is consent from the individual with authority over the area or property to be searched. For instance, law enforcement can collect evidence without a warrant if a homeowner consents to a residence search. Another exception is the “plain view” doctrine, where an officer can seize that evidence without a warrant if an officer observes evidence of a crime in plain view while legally present in a particular location (Peterson & Sommers, 2010). Additionally, exigent circumstances, such as imminent danger or the risk of evidence destruction, may justify a warrantless search and evidence collection. Examples of situations where evidence is often acquired without a warrant include traffic stops where contraband or illegal items are in plain view, consent searches during arrests, and emergencies where law enforcement needs to act swiftly to prevent harm or secure evidence.
However, it is crucial to note that there are strict limitations on warrantless searches to protect individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights. The legality of evidence obtained without a warrant is frequently subject to legal challenges, with courts assessing whether the circumstances met the criteria for an exception to the warrant requirement (Tan, 2023). Conversely, there are scenarios where a warrant is legally mandated to obtain evidence. For example, law enforcement must obtain a warrant from a judge before intercepting communications or accessing electronic records in cases involving wiretaps or electronic surveillance. Similarly, searches of a person’s home, considered the most private of spaces, generally require a warrant unless an exception applies (Peterson & Sommers, 2010). In conclusion, evidence in the criminal justice system plays a pivotal role in establishing the truth and ensuring justice is served. The methods of obtaining evidence, whether with or without a warrant, are subject to legal principles and constitutional safeguards that balance law enforcement needs with individual rights. Understanding these nuances is essential to upholding the principles of justice and protecting individuals from unwarranted intrusions.
3. White collar:
Reply to Russo:
User’s profile pictureCharles Russo KEISER FACULTY MANAGER
RE: Medical Fraud – Dr. Russo
COLLAPSE
I have an odd allergy to many of those pain medications discussed this week that prohibits me taking them….I get the hiccups. Now when I say hiccups, I mean hiccups several times a minute that seem to never end. The kind of hiccups where the docs are worried that I’ll rip my stitches out.

So with me the options for pain meds are on one end or the other….aspirin or dilaudid (essentially morphine). What this means is that after surgery I end up taken the dilaudid for the first day and then don’t go anywhere near that stuff again. It’s that addictive and it sends me flying (think Kenny in South Park Season 12, Episode 3). I’ll deal with the pain rather than expose myself to the potential issues related to this stuff.

It’s a choice I make and it’s not always an easy one because…well…being in pain sucks. I know what many of the pharmaceuticals can do to people. I’ve watched people around me lose their jobs, lose their families, and lose their lives. Unfortunately, there is no end in sight. The money made by corporations far exceeds the fines and penalties placed on them by government. It seems it is viewed as “the cost of doing business”.
4: Reply to Garret Farmer:
he FDA plays a major role in regulating what drugs are allowed to be released to the public. The FDA conducts regular inspections on these facilities to ensure approved chemicals and practices are be utilized to manufacture these drugs. If the FDA deems them unsafe or ineffective, they can demand recalls of the drug in production.
There is also various lawsuits brought against pharmaceutical companies for unethical actions. A common one right now is the lawsuits related to the opioid epidemic. Some companies were not just sought after because of the highly addictive drugs they were producing, but the aggressive ad campaigns that downplayed the side effects of the drug. An example of a company performing this crime was Purdue Pharma. Purdue Pharma was found guilty and had to pay fines with no jail time. “The abuse and diversion of prescription opioids has contributed to a national tragedy of addiction and deaths, in addition to those caused by illicit street opioids,” said Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen. “With criminal guilty pleas, a federal settlement of more than $8 billion, and the dissolution of a company and repurposing its assets entirely for the public’s benefit, the resolution in today’s announcement re-affirms that the Department of Justice will not relent in its multi-pronged efforts to combat the opioids crisis” (Office of Public Affairs, 2021).
The government has also used its resources for pharmaceutical integrity units. This means that certain agencies will visit business cites and test the legitimacy of their product. In some causes there can be evidence of pharmaceutical fraud, which can include counterfeited drugs and chemicals. This crime can use Adam Runsdorf as an example. He was making counterfeit cough syrup and trading it with drug trafficker Byron Marshall in Housten Texas.” According to information presented in court, Byron A. Marshall, 43, of Houston, utilized Woodfield Pharmaceutical’s manufacturing facility and employees in Houston to produce more than 500,000 pints of counterfeit cough syrup. Marshall’s drug trafficking organization sold the counterfeit drugs across Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin, California, Florida, Arkansas, and Ohio” (U.S. Attorney’s Office – Eastern District of Texas, 2022). Rundsdorf was sentenced to 20 year jail sentence in a federal penitentiary. He abused his trust by the U.S. government, allowing him to sell schedule 1 drugs directly to street drug traffickers.
Instruction: 4 posts can be minimum 130 words Moke sure to cite each post. Number them properly and reference in APA.