Title: Chimel v. California Date/Court: United States Supreme Court, 1969 Facts: This case deals with Ted Chimel, who they suspected robbed a local coin shop. On September 13, 1965, several officers from Santa Ana came to the home of Chimel with an arrest warrant for his expected involvement in the burglary. The officers arrived at the door and identified themselves to Chimel’s wife and asked if they could come into the home, she agreed and showed them into the house. While in the house the officers waited 10-15 minutes until Chimel came home from work.
Defendant: The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff Fourth Amendment right was not violated, and he violate 18 U.S.C. & 1084. Holding/rule of Law: (1) When a court rule under 18 U.S.C. & 1084 it requires the government to prove “whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or in formation assisting in the placing of bets or wagers”. The penalty is a fine not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (2) Does the Constitution protect us against unreasonable search and seizures and not the place?
Even with the absence of a defendant local police and US federal agent entered Week residence without a warrant and seized evidence related to “illegal gambling which they wished to use against Weeks in a criminal gambling crime” (Ingram p.81). Before his trial, “Weeks requested the return of documents that the federal government sought to use against him, however his request was denied and he was eventually partly convicted based on evidence illegally taken from his residence” (Ingram p. 81). However, during his appeal before the United States Supreme Court Weeks argue that his Fourth Amendment rights was violated when federal agents seized the documents that was used as evidence against him in the trial court and the Court agreed and reversed Weeks
This case is regarded as one of the influential cases in the interpretation of fourth amendment. In this case, police took drug dogs to Jardines’ front porch to begin a preliminary search. The dogs then gave a positive alert for drugs, this gave the police probable cause
The majority explained that the Fourth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, allows for officers to arrests without a warrant where officers have probable cause to believe a suspect has committed a crime in the presence of the officer. In this case, the officers undoubtedly concluded that a felony had been committed, and the question for the Court was if the officers had sufficient probable cause to believe that Pringle had committed a crime. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, that question was a fact dependent investigation as to whether circumstances allowed officers to conclude not only that a crime was committed but to have specific suspicion of Pringle. In the written opinion Justice Rehnquist stated that three men riding in a car where drugs are found, with all three suspects denying possession, affords officers probable cause to conclude that one or all have committed a crime. The Court rejected Pringle’s assertion that the probable cause in this case amounted to “guilt by association,” distinguishing this case from others in which searches of groups had been limited.
In the case of Weeks v. United States on December 21, 1911 in Kansas City, Missouri Freemont Weeks was arrested at his job on suspicion of transporting lottery tickets through the mail, meanwhile officers were entering into his residence without his permission or a warrant. Weeks took this case to trail to petition for the return of his private possessions. If the court decides to not return his property he could be convicted of transporting lottery tickets through the mail which is illegal in Missouri. But this is a violation of his 4th Amendment rights if the court decides to use the evidence they was seized illegally.
This is a criminal case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes. Hayes did not give consent to be taken to the police station and be detained plus fingerprint. Therefore, Hayed Fourth Amendment rights were violated and the conviction was overturned. Fact of the case: In the 1980’s there was a series of rape and burglary that happened in Punta Gorda Florida.
Issue: Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cellphone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user of the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment? Facts: In April 2011, a group of four men were arrested for a series of armed robberies in Michigan and Ohio. One of the four men confessed to the crimes, and he gave the FBI his number along with the number of everyone else involved in the crime. One of the people convicted in the crime was Timothy Carpenter.
“Riley v. California”) Bensur and Brokamp say in their article that in court, Riley claimed that his Fourth Amendment right was violated because the officers did not have probable cause also called reasonable suspicion to examine his phone. The case went to the Supreme Court and the judges agreed that the police had acted
According to the Fourth Amendment, people have the right to be secure in their private property, and may only be searched with probable cause. However, in a recent case, this right was violated by the government. An Oregon citizen, with the initials of DLK, was suspected of growing marijuana in his home. The federal government used a thermal imager to scan his home, and were later given a warrant to physically search his home. However, many remain divided over whether or not this scan was constitutional, as there was no warrant at the time of the scan.
“The Fourth Amendment says that you have an expectation of privacy in your home and person (body). The government cannot search you, your home, or belongings without a good reason.” (Background Essay). But, through the years the government has invaded the protection the Fourth Amendment has given to society. For example, “Federal agents put a bug- a device that allowed them to listen to the conversations” (Doc A).
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Consitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The common misconception is that it simply covers what it states. In the age of development and new technology, it is likely that what we consider secrets or personal information is not as secret or personal as we once believed. Important pieces of evidence or information have often been found through illegal means, and this has led to many cases that change the way the constitution and the Fourth Amendment affect
Illicit drugs are drugs that have been considered illegal, such as, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana, in some locations (Levinthal, 2016). Legislating drugs began around 1900. In essence, the government let society govern the use and opinions of drugs. Most of society looked down upon the nonmedical use of drugs.
Unreasonable search and seizure is an asset in this country. It is an asset in this country because the police have to have rules also. If America did away with the fourth Amendment there would not be any crime because the police will be able to arrest anyone without probable cause. The police would have such much power that people will be afraid to even drive through a stop sign.
Therefore, the only way a search and seizure of a citizens’ private property is legal is with a reasonable exception. Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment keeps the belongings of American people secure from warrantless searches and
