Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Fourth amendment legal analysis
Fourth amendment legal analysis
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.
Fourth amendment legal analysis
Fourth amendment legal analysis
The Fourth Amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Fourth amendment legal analysis
The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.
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
One of, if not, the most provocative arguments Kerr offers in his article is that the third-party doctrine should not be framed in terms of “reasonable expectation of privacy” in which a person “waives” their reasonable expectation of privacy, but rather as a consent doctrine. In his view, what we voluntarily disclose to third parties eliminates Fourth Amendment protection because of implied consent. Specifically, a person voluntarily discloses information to a third party if they do so knowingly. Consequently, searches, if a government agent’s conduct is deemed as such, are reasonable because the person allowed the government to do so. Kerr’s example for his principle is problematic.
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.
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).
This case is freedom vs order argument. They say that the vice-principal had the constitutional right to search the bag, he had reasonable suspicion and that is the magic word that gives students expectation of privacy while balancing it with law and order of the school. The court goes on to say that he’s further not violating the constitution because once he saw the evidence, it was in plain view and theirs a plain view doctrine which is another exception to the fourth amendment which
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.
A man named David Riley was arrested after a traffic stop in California. The police later searched Riley’s car and found several guns in the vehicle. The police then took his phone and with the information they found, were able to convict him of an unrelated shooting several weeks prior to the traffic stop. However, the police did not receive a warrant before looking through Riley’s phone. Some say that because the police were not granted a warrant they had violated the Fourth Amendment right that protects people from “unreasonable searches and seizures”.
Several exceptions to the Fourth amendment have been made over the past several decades, with some being understandable and others being questionable. Consenting to a search results in not needing a warrant, though this poses many exceptions and complications, i.e. the scope of the consent given, whether consent is voluntarily specified, or whether a person has the right to consent to a search of another's property. Another understandable exception is the “plain view” doctrine, where an officer (acting in legal presence) can seize plain view objects. The stipulation to this is that the officer must have had probable clause that the objects seized are contraband. Exigent circumstances, where it would be harmful or impractical to obtain a warrant
“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 protects all citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment states any form of stalking, any form of eavesdropping, any form of searching and seizing are a violation of the 4th Amendment. This protects everyone of the United States(Oyez). Searching or seizing anything from someone in a private area without a
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.
The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures (Hall, 2014). In the scenario, it is important to remember that the employer is a government entity and the Fourth Amendment was originally designed to limit government authority as it applies to unreasonable searches and seizures (Hall, 2014). You would not be able to make a strong argument that the government violated the Fourth Amendment in this scenario. The property, whether it is a laptop, cell phone, or tablet, belongs to the government. Government entities have policies that employees must read and sign specifically acknowledging there is no expectation of privacy on these devices owned by the government.
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
Illegal trash dumping is a common issue in my neighborhood. We the people are getting tired of having to deal with the consequences of something we aren't responsible for. Many individuals within large cities, must deal with illegal trash dumping. This a growing problem leaving homeowners to resolve this matter alone. My point here is how to make the city and overall community more accountable.