Officer Denis approached Mimi at the pizzeria and asked her to see her bookbag. Mimi put her bag down and told the officer that she was just getting her pizza. As Mimi went to grab her pizza two feet away, Officer Denis looked in her bookbag and found a gun. At Mimi's trial, her attorney argues that the gun is not admissible. Under what rules does Mimi's attorney make this argument. Will the gun be admitted into evidence, why or why not?

 

Answer:

The attorney argues so under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. This amendments offers protection to US citizens against unreasonable search and seizures that might be carried out by police officers.

Step-by-step explanation

The Fourth Amendment makes sure that the privacy and freedom of the citizens is maintained. A police officers requires a warrant to conduct a search and seizure where necessary.

However, the gun will be admitted because there are several exceptions to unreasonable search and seizures. Under exigent circumstances, there are situations that require swift action to avoid imminent danger to life, property damage, a suspect escaping, and so on.

The gun will be admissible in court under exigent circumstance. The officer has the right to search the bag without a warranty to obtain any evidence that will be crucial in an investigation. Taking time to obtain a warrant gives Mimi an opportunity to destroy or hide the gun.