Based on a tip from a reliable informant that an attorney was illegally selling automatic weapons and ammunition from his storef
ront office, the police obtained a warrant to search for weapons at the office. When they arrived at the building, they saw a client exiting the attorney's office and placing what appeared to be a weapon inside his jacket. The police stopped the client on the street and an officer patted down his outer clothing. The officer felt no weapon but did feel a bag with several small tube-shaped objects in it. She immediately placed the client under arrest. The contents of the bag were later determined to be marijuana cigarettes. Prior to trial on the narcotics charge, the client sought to suppress introduction of the marijuana as evidence. The arresting officer testified at the suppression hearing that, based on her long experience as a narcotics officer, she concluded immediately that the bag contained marijuana cigarettes when she first touched it. If the officer's testimony is believed, how should the court rule on the motion to suppress the marijuana evidence
Suppression of important evidence, extra punishment.
Explanation:
I am no law student, but by what I read here, the drugs are an important evidence to the case, and cannot be suppressed to the court. Plus, by what I heard, if an officer gets a warrant for an illegal weapon trade and find illegal drugs (narcotics charge) with a dealer/client, there can still be a charge, but not for illegal weaponry, but for illegal drugs.
The ACA defines a full-time employee as an individual who works an average of at least 30 hours per week. The mandate for employers to provide health care coverage is in effect and will be fully implemented by 2016.
