particular person may be involved, but do not have probable cause. You follow the
individual for several days without developing additional incriminating evidence, but
you are convinced the individual is guilty and may very well kill again. When
the suspect leaves his apartment, he leaves the front door unlocked. You open the door
and see a gun on the coffee table that matches the type forensics has determined fired
the fatal bullets in the double homicide. There is no one else in the apartment, so you
leave and wait across the street. A few hours later, you see the suspect stumbling
towards his apartment, obviously under the influence of alcohol. You wait until he is at
his front door and approach him with the idea of arresting him for public intoxication
after he opens the door. You do so and, as you arrest the suspect, the gun is in plain
view. Based on the arrest and the gun being in plain view, the evidence is seized
consistent with the law and will be instrumental in convicting the suspect. No one
knows that you had earlier entered the apartment without probable cause, which would
render the search suspect and the evidence likely excluded at trial. Does this raise an
ethical issue for the police officer? If so, how should the police officer deal with it?
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over cases that reach it on appeal and cases over
which it has _________ jurisdiction.