ipl-logo

Assante Case: Cheating V. 555 US

620 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: 4th amendment exceptions

ARGUMENT I. The District Court erred in denying the Motion to Suppress because the evidence obtained from Assante’s personal laptop resulted from an intrusive, non-routine border search conducted without reasonable suspicion. The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right in people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . .”U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Despite the Common Law Border Doctrine, people do not completely forfeit their Fourth Amendment rights even when searches are conducted at the border. But, on May 18, 2013, upon Assante’s return from Australia, he was “randomly” selected from among many travelers for a comprehensive forensic examination absent reasonable suspicion. (R. at 9.) During the comprehensive forensic examination Assante’s personal laptop was subjected to an eighteen hour intrusive search using specialized equipment to open and read all files on the laptop, scanning the unallocated space on the hard drive for deleted files, then proceeding to …show more content…

United States, 555 U.S. 135, 139 (2009). And in order to make effective the fundamental constitutional guarantees of sanctity of the home and inviolability of the person, the United States Supreme Court has held that evidence seized during an unlawful search could not constitute proof against the victim of the search. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487 (1963). And in Montoya de Hernandez, the court explained that "some searches of property are so destructive," "particularly offensive," or overly intrusive in the manner in which they are carried out as to require particularized suspicion, such as the present case. 473 U.S. 531(1985). Following that line of reasoning, this Court should hold that evidence obtained during Assante’s non-routine border search should have been

Show More
Related
863 Words | 4 Pages

These function and information does not have enough effect to the law enforcement interests. In Riley’s case, the California Court of Appeal accept the case. The court maintained the original court’s decision. The reason is in the conduction that phone related to arrestee's person immediately, the Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless search of phone data incident to an arrest.

Read More
1009 Words | 5 Pages

When Weeks was arrested, police officers entered his home without a warrant by using a key and began searching it for evidence. The officers then turned over evidence to the U.S. Marshals that was used to get a conviction. Weeks appealed the conviction which eventually came to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled unanimously that the search violated Weeks rights under the 4th Amendment. This ruling also prevented local police officers from securing evidence by ways that are prohibited under the federal exclusionary rule and giving it to federal investigators.

Read More
435 Words | 2 Pages

Since the police officer had a reasonable suspicion that the Respondent was holding drugs, the officer’s search and seizure of the cocaine was reasonable since the search remained within the bounds set forth by Terry v. Ohio. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a police officer’s sense of touch does not incur an invasion of Petitioner’s privacy during a stop and

Read More
632 Words | 3 Pages

The vehicle’s search was based on precedent that was eventually overturned; thus, Davis argued the firearm should be suppressed under the exclusionary rule as it violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The central question of the case was whether evidence obtained in a search that was conducted in good faith and reliance on binding precedent should be subject to suppression under the exclusionary rule (de Golian, 2012). The Supreme Court ruled that under the exclusionary rule, evidence is not excluded if during the search, it is obtained by officers who reasonably rely on a warrant that is later invalidated (Exclusionary rule 2022). How the Supreme Court Case Reflects on the Exclusionary Rule The Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule has historically operated as a deterrent against unlawful police behavior and safeguard individuals from government overreach.

Read More
1475 Words | 6 Pages

The legal questions in this case are: Did the stop and frisk of Christina 's violate her 4th Amendment rights? Did the search of Christina violate her 4th Amendment rights? Should the evidence taken be suppressed? These questions will be answered by applying to the facts of Martinez’s case to the precedent of Terry v. Ohio. According to the Terry v. Ohio precedent a police may perform a frisk without probable cause under the following circumstances.

Read More
742 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
499 Words | 2 Pages

And if those considered free of criminal involvement may nevertheless be searched or inspected under civil statutes, it is difficult to understand why the Fourth Amendment would prevent entry onto their property to recover evidence of a crime not committed by them but by others. As we understand the structure and language of the Fourth Amendment and our cases expounding it, valid warrants to search property may be issued when it is satisfactorily demonstrated to the magistrate that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime is located on the premises. The Fourth Amendment has itself struck the balance between privacy and public need, and there is no occasion or justification for a court to revise the Amendment and strike a new balance by denying the search warrant in the circumstances present here and by insisting that the investigation proceed by subpoena duces tecum, whether on the theory that the latter is a less intrusive alternative or

Read More
433 Words | 2 Pages

THIS COURT SHOULD REJECT THE FOURTEENTH CIRCUIT’S TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES APPROACH AND INSTEAD APPLY A BRIGHT LINE STANDARD OF REVIEW TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN AUTHORIZED DRIVER OF A RENTAL CAR HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH The Fourteenth Circuit Court of Appeals improperly applied the totality of the circumstances approach in determining that Respondent Larry Nightingale has standing to assert a Fourth Amendment challenge to the search of the rental vehicle he was driving at the time of the traffic stop checkpoint. The Fourth Amendment requires that the one who is making the challenge of the legality of a search to prove that he was personally the victim of an invasion of privacy. Rakas v Illinois, 439 U.S. 128,

Read More
961 Words | 4 Pages

The accused right under section 8 of the Charter in R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301 was violated; however, it was not as a result of the throat hold. The charter violation was on the basis of the unlawful search of the resident without a search warrant, even though the throat hold has taken place. However, it was concluded that the evidence would not affect the fairness of the trial and they should be admitted (R. v. Hamill, [1987 ] 1 S.C.R.

Read More
1139 Words | 5 Pages

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits unlawful searches conducted by the government, suggesting that it is the, “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” In the case of Florida v. Jardines, Detective William Pedraja of the Miami-Dade Police Department received an unverified tip that marijuana was being grown the in the home of Jardines. After a mere fifteen-minute surveillance of the home, Detective Douglas Bartlet and his drug-sniffing dog walked up his driveway and onto the porch. The dog discovered the odor of marijuana. Taking what they had gathered at the home, Detective Pedraja applied for a warrant to search the residence and Jardines was

Read More
545 Words | 3 Pages

Technology has advanced over the past decade, providing law enforcement officials with new ways of gathering criminal evidence. However, these tools have raised some constitutional questions. An individual from Oregon with the initials DLK was involved in a case which had people wondering if agents violated his fourth amendment rights. Federal agents suspected that DLK was growing marijuana inside of his home, which drove agents to scan his house using a thermal scanner which showed heat just like the kind that is generated by using special lights in growing marijuana. A judge then issued agents a search warrant to check the home where they found 100 marijuana plants.

Read More
427 Words | 2 Pages

To begin, we need to understand the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment was created to prevent the government from breaching into our homes and convicting us of crimes based on evidence they discover within our homes. It was vital to state unreasonable searches in the constitution, and an unreasonable search is a search done without

Read More
494 Words | 2 Pages

The local police received a tip from an informant that a supply store was allegedly growing and selling marijuana. The enforcement needed proof that illegal activity was taking place at this business location, so they went through extreme measures to get surveillance to prove illegal activities were taking place. Utilizing a paid informant is an area of concern to ethicists who believe that informants are often paid to get away with crimes. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause”(Swanson, Chamelin, Territo, & Taylor, 2012). As a consequence, the successful use of informant in supporting requests for a warrant depends on the reliability of their information.

Read More
1030 Words | 5 Pages

In the criminal justice system a police officer or crime scene investigator cannot legally search a person or property without a search warrant. There have been ongoing debates and revisions on the legal requirements and circumstances under which it is necessary to obtain a search and seizure warrant before crime scene processing. According to the Fourth Amendment search and seizure requirements, a warrant is required any time a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. Therefore, in an effort to protect the right of the people and their belongings against unreasonable search and seizures and up hold the law officials accountable for fair treatment and processing procedures.

Read More
452 Words | 2 Pages

Nevertheless, the pressure to arrest is not because of the exclusionary rule; however, the governing police conduct prohibits a search without a warrant, unless the search is incident to a valid arrest. (Paulsen, 1961) The U.S Supreme Court’s ruling that courts must “allow some latitude for honest mistakes that are made by officers in the dangerous and arduous process of making arrests. (Cormier,

Read More

More about Assante Case: Cheating V. 555 US

Open Document