ipl-logo

Chrisman V. Supreme Court Case Analysis

428 Words2 Pages

A Washington police officer stopped a student at the Washington State University after observing the student was carrying a bottle of gin. After asking the student for identification the student informed him that is was in his dorm room. The student, followed by the officer, then went into his room get his identification. While the student was searching for his identification, the officer noticed that the student 's roommate, had marijuana seeds and a pipe on his desk. The officer asked the students if they had additional drugs in the room and the students provided him with a box with marijuana and money. Another officer arrived on the scene and they search the student’s room and found additional drugs. The student (roommate of the original student) was charged with possession of a controlled substance. Issues The issue to be determined in this case is “Did the officer 's seizure of the drugs violate Chrisman 's "reasonable expectation of privacy" guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment?” Holdings …show more content…

The student’s voluntarily provided the officer with additional drugs and provided written consent, to a search of the room although they had the right to refuse the search and demand a search warrant. Reasoning/Analysis of the Court The Court held that the "plain view" exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permitted the officers to seize clearly incriminating evidence discovered "in a place where the officer has a right to be." The Court held that the officer had a right to be at the first students’ elbow at all times. The officer obtained lawful access to the student’s dorm room and was free to seize incriminating evidence. Importance to Higher

Show More
Related
276 Words | 2 Pages

The case of California v. Greenwood involves police who were investigating a potential drug trafficker, Greenwood. The police, who were acting on information that suggested that Greenwood could possibly be engaged in narcotics trafficking, obtained trash that Greenwood had left on the curb in front of his home. Considering the trash included items indicative of narcotics use, the police then obtained warrants to search Greenwood’s home, discovered controlled substances during their searches, and subsequently arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges. The issue in this case was whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of trash left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.

Read More
731 Words | 3 Pages

Analysis of issues in the motion to suppress. Argument a) The police relied on the information provided by CRI-2 to form the ground for an affidavit seeking to obtain a search warrant. The information from CRI-2 was not credible and could not be independently be relied upon or verified.

Read More
236 Words | 1 Pages

1. What constitutional rights were violated? How were they violated? Breaking and entering, illegal search, and questioning a suspect without informing him of his rights were the constitutional rights violated in this scenario. Arnie and the officer entered into the suspects home without a warrant or probable cause and they then proceeded to search his house illegal and used the evidence in the house to question him without using informing him of his rights.

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
129 Words | 1 Pages

Rahman, broken into the location and loudly pounded on plaintiff’s door. Plaintiff states he opened the door and tightly handcuffed. Plaintiff states he was arrested and no drugs were recovered in plaintiff’s apartment. • Department records show that plaintiff was arrested on March 8, 2013 for criminal possession of a controlled substance. Det.

Read More
829 Words | 4 Pages

United States v. Mark James Knights, 219 F. 3d 1138 Issue: The issue involved in this case is whether the respondents Fourth Amendment rights were infringed upon when law enforcement searched his home without a warrant. Even though respondent agreed to the terms of probation following release, which included searches of his person or premises with or without a warrant (The United States Department of Justice, 2014). Rule: The rule of law in regards to Knights probation conditions following release state that Knights would “submit his person, property, residence, vehicle, personal effects, to be searched at any time, with or without a search warrant, warrant of arrest or reasonable cause by any probation officer or law enforcement officer” (Karagiozis et al., 2005 p. 223).

Read More
617 Words | 3 Pages

I, Judge Yen, find the evidence of the gift cards seized from Turner Round’s car inadmissible on the grounds of the violation of his 4th Amendment rights. Starting from the beginning, the stop that Officer Oliver Towns made of Mr. Round for a broken headlight is constitutional. Officer Towns verification of Round’s identity and vehicular history is also constitutional because it is an established police procedure. From verifying Mr. Round’s identity he discovered there was an active arrest warrant for the possession of marijuana and is allowed to arrest Mr. Round on those grounds. Although in the facts of the case, it is never explicitly stated that Mr. Round was arrested and read his Miranda rights, it is objectively clear that he is under arrest since Officer Towns placed Mr. Round in the back of

Read More
377 Words | 2 Pages

Unspoken: Miranda; More Than Words The Fourth Amendment , “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” In Johnson v. United States (1948), officers smelled burning opium from the window of a hotel, the officers entered without warning, found the only occupant and had him persecuted. Though the man had committed the crime, he did not agree that the officers enter his hotel room or go through his belongings. Clearly this is a huge invasion of privacy and should be confronted by allowing one to know their right to decline. On that note, if there is any suspicion that narcotics are involved in a certain case there should be consequences,

Read More
1265 Words | 6 Pages

The analysis of whether the scope of the search here was permissible under that standard is straightforward. Indeed, the majority does not dispute that "general background possibilities" establish that students conceal contraband in their underwear. It acknowledges that school officials had reasonable suspicion to look in Redding 's backpack and outer clothing because if "Wilson 's reasonable suspicion of pill distribution were not understood to support searches of outer clothes and backpack, it would not justify

Read More
237 Words | 1 Pages

School officials are not allowed to conduct searches on students without probable cause; and random searches are not permissible according to The Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that a person has the right to be secure in their homes, and personal effects and to prevent them against un-probable search cases. For example, these laws and policies affect school leaders decision-making procedures by stating that school leaders must have probable cause to conduct searches against students for specific incidents and locations including any property to be taken from the students. For example, in the case of New Jersey v T. L. O. (1985) addressed the issue of can a search by a school official be called a "search" based on the Fourth Amendment

Read More
138 Words | 1 Pages

In a New Jersey bathroom a teacher found two girls in the bathroom and immediately took them to the principal 's office. The one girl confessed of smoking but TLO,the other girl, wouldn’t admit to it. The principal demanded to search her purse. In the purse he found evidence that she was also dealing marijuana at school. The principal found a wad of money in the girl 's purse.

Read More
991 Words | 4 Pages

Robinette 519 U.S. 33 (1996) case, the court ruled that the fourth amendment search to valid consent is that the consent be voluntary and voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances. The issue with Officer Gung Ho is that he was in a police uniform, yelling for Dan to stop, this alone can be an intimidation factor, and now Ho is asking to search Dan’s bag. Dan may not know he can refuse the right for Officer Ho to search his bag because the officer does not have probable cause to search his bag in the first place. Therefore any evidence found in the bag could be suppressed in court and in the violation on his fourth amendment

Read More
143 Words | 1 Pages

A student “TLO” was caught smoking cigarettes in school, she was confronted by the school’s vice principal, who forced the student to hand over her purse. The vice principal then searched her purse, found drug paraphernalia and called the police; the student was eventually charged with multiple crimes and expelled from the school. Her lawyer argued that the evidence should not have been admissible in court because it violated the student 's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Read More
192 Words | 1 Pages

As illegal drug use have become a nationwide problem, public employers, like fire departments, are testing employees for illegal drug use. Fire departments want to keep a drug free environment but they must be aware of the legal aspects that limit their power to test for illegal drugs. In The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the privacy of individuals against random and unreasonable intrusions by the government. As such, fire departments must only test employees for drug use in compliance with the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

Read More
720 Words | 3 Pages

Police found graffiti on one of the columns between the soccer stadium and track on Thursday, Oct. 15, at 4:05 a.m., Campus Police reported. The markings were done using red spray paint. No other graffiti was found in the area, police said. An Eickhoff worker's car was damaged sometime between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 14, Campus Police said.

Read More

More about Chrisman V. Supreme Court Case Analysis

Open Document