Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of the fourth amendment
The 4th amendment explained
Analysis of the fourth amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of the fourth amendment
The 4th amendment explained
Analysis of the fourth amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Gates counsel argued that law enforcement lack of sufficient probable cause for a warrant was a fourth amendment violation. The decision of the Trail Courts, was upheld by The Appellate Court. The court used the example of Spinelli v. United States,
US v. Lopez was a decision handed down by the US Supreme Court in 1995. The case was significant because it was the first ruling to set limits on Congress's power under the Commerce Claus in the Constitution since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Lopez, a student was caught with an unloaded weapon on school grounds that he was allegedly selling. He was arrested under the Gun-Free Zone law. Lopez argued that this law was unconstitutional as it blocked interstate commerce.
Worcester v. Georgia By Sydney Stephenson Worcester v. Georgia is a case that impacted tribal sovereignty in the United States and the amount of power the state had over native American territories. Samuel Worcester was a minister affiliated with the ABCFM (American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions). In 1827 the board sent Worcester to join its Cherokee mission in Georgia. Upon his arrival, Worcester began working with Elias Boudinot, the editor of the Cherokee Phoenix (the first Native American newspaper in the United States) to translate religious text into the Cherokee language. Over time Worcester became a close friend of the Cherokee leaders and advised them about their political and legal rights under the Constitution and federal-Cherokee treaties.
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.
Facts: Jose Colegio filled up his gas tank at a gas station and took off without making payment. Issue: Florida vs. Colegio (Will robbery be an appropriate charge?) Rule(s): Florida statues under title XLVI 812.13 Robbery - (1) “Robbery” means the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, with intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person or the owner of the money or other property, when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear. 812.014 Theft. — (1)
v. Clayton, held that the police officers did not infringe Mr. Clayton and Mr. Farmer’s rights under ss. 8 and ss. 9 of the Charter as their unusual behaviour gave the officer reasonable grounds to conduct a pat down search. This case is significant to us for various reasons. First of all this case shows us the circumstances, when a police officer has the right to detain an individual without a search warrant.
Case Name, Citation, Year Cook v. Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA), 09-cv-00547 M.D. Fla. (2009) Facts of the Case: On June 16, 2009 parents of female athletes at FHSAA member schools filed suit against the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging that the newPolicy 6 discriminates against female students according to Title IX by reducing school participation in completions by 40 percent at the varsity level and 20 percent at the sub-varsity level. The plaintiffs also stated a complaint that male driven sports where exempt from this action because cheerleading was not recognized as a sport thus breaking the Title IX law. Issues: Why did Policy 6 reduced the number of competitions
Stanford V. Kentucky The juvenile justice system has had many famous court cases, such as Kent V. United States, Breed V. Jones, Eddings V. Oklahoma and many more. There comes times when the supreme court comes across very difficult decisions. The one court case that stands out from the rest is Stanford V. Kentucky. This court case was brought to light around June,1989, and the end result was the minimum age for the death penalty was set at 16 years old.
Sullivan vs. Florida was a very high profiled case in 1989. Joe Sullivan was a 13-year-old African American boy, who was also mentally disabled. Joe was accused of sexually assaulting an elderly white woman hours after he and 2 other juveniles robbed her for her jewelry and coins. Joe was the youngest child to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He was tried as an adult because he a prior felony conviction on his record (Sullivan v. Florida).
Question Presented: Whether President Doe’s executive order, on the newly annexed island to Florida, violates any Constitutional Amendments, which should be granted to the occupiers of said island under the Constitution of the United States of America. Brief Answer: Yes, President Doe’s executive order, with its 13 provisions, violated the Constitutional Amendments granted to the occupiers of the newly annexed island to Florida.
Landmark Research on Amendment of Choice The case of the Fourth Amendment of dog-sniff case has been settled by the Supreme Court which has been in court three times in recent years. There was a 6-3 decision stating that the police officers didn’t have the right to use the drug sniffing dogs after a traffic stop without a warrant.
The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).
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.
41. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution.
In the Robinson case, the Court decided that the 4th amendment includes the full warrantless search of a person and his or her property, within immediate control, at the time of arrest, but without any identifiable danger to police. With this specific decision, the Court places more power on the government as it allows them to obtain such evidence without needing to justify such searches. Similarly, in New York v Belton, the Court concluded that when an individual is subject to a lawful custodial arrest, police are constitutionally permitted to a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of that person’s vehicle if it was in immediate control at the time of arrest (ii). Belton expands the Chimel rule to apply to vehicles by clarifying that an individual has a lesser expectation of privacy of their automobile when they are lawfully