They have also said that it is reasonable for any officer to do an immediate area search of where that individual is to make sure that they can not grab anything for a weapon like for example a knife. The Supreme Court clearly notes in its opinion that such searches have to happen in the immediate area of arrest and any such search outside that area must be made with a search warrant. In Chimel case the officers could have patted down Chimel and then done a search of the immediate area to make sure that no weapons were hiding around. But once they began looking all around the house that requires a search warrant. The Supreme Court reversed the California Supreme Court’s
This applies to Sam Wardlow’s situation in which evidence was founded illegally without a proper search warrant. Also, the weapon that was found in Sam’s bag does not relate to any prior crime that may connect him to. This is not in anyway, allowed for officer Nolan to have even stopped Mr.Wardlow. Possibly, if Sam was connected to a crime beforehand and if the officers did have a proper search warrant. Then there is no way Sam’s rights were violated.
The case, Utah v. Strieff, A criminal case involving probable cause and the Fourth amendment was a case in Utah, where a narcotics detective made an arrest of a man, who was not actively involved in a crime but had frequented a suspected drug house. The suspect, Mr. Strieff had a previous warrant and was seen leaving the home where drugs are known. The detective, Officer Fackrell had been watching the home for over a week based on a tip of suspected drug activity. Officer Fackrell watched Mr. Strieff leave the house, walk to a store and proceeded to stop him, ask for his ID and called his name in to see if he had any warrants. He did have a warrant for traffic violation and the officer arrested him, searched him and found illegal drugs on him.
Sam Wardlow’s attorney filed a motion to have the gun evidence suppressed in the Cook County Circuit Court, because the officer did not have a justifiable suspicion that was sufficient to justify an investigative stop. The court denied the attorneys request to have the evidence suppressed. The judge believed that the finding of the .38 caliber gun was found during a lawful stop and frisk. The Illinois Appellate Courts First Division decided that Sam’s choice to turn around and walk/run the opposite way from the police officers in a high crime area was not suspicious.
According to the Fourth Amendment, a person has rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, any search in the Plaintiff home beyond his person and the area within his immediate control is unreasonable. (2) When the police officers arrested Chimel and search him, this all was legal, but when they started searching the house, this was illegal. They should have gone back down to the station and attain a search warrant to search the house for evidence. Therefore the evidence that was seized should be suppressed because they did not have a search warrant.
Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, and demanded entry. No suspect was found, but police discovered a trunk of obscene pictures in Mapp 's basement. Mapp was arrested for possessing the pictures, and was convicted in an Ohio court where she lost the case in fighting her for first amendment rights. Then, Mapp argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search of the officers and got her case taken to the U.S. Supreme Court where she won. At the time of the case, unlawfully seized evidence was banned from federal courts but not state courts, meaning that the evidence found in Mapp’s home was used against her in the Ohio court, but not the U.S. Supreme Court.
In court, she moved to suppress evidence found in her purse and her confession, as well. The Juvenile Court denied the motion to suppress and found her guilty. The reviewing court was held with the New Jersey Supreme Court where they agreed with the Juvenile Court that T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.
There were claims on the Manton case study that Dixon had prior history of engaging in sexual activity at his high school, which led Dixon to be suspended twice for the prior sexual acts. At the time of this incident, Dixon was 18 years old, and the “victim” was 15 (Manton, 2005). Following this factual information, Dixon at that time claimed that the sexual act was consensual and accused the girl of fabricating the story because of fear of her parents finding out and punishing her for sleeping with a black man (Manton, 2005). Several charges were suggested for Dixon which included: statutory rape, aggravated child molestation, rape, sexual battery, false imprisonment, and aggravated assist (Manton, 2005). Dixon was then acquitted of a majority of the charges and found Dixon guilty of statutory rape and aggravated child molestation (Manton,
Therefore the officer held a stop and frisk and found a .38 on both men. Officer McFadden states that he feared the two men may have had a gun. Therefore during an investigation, he does have the right to stop and frisk those men. Any kind of search and seizure must be thought of under the certain circumstances. In this case, it is two men walking past a storefront a few dozen times and having a meeting after every time they walked the block.
Petitioner, Triniti T. (“Student” or “Petitioner”) filed her initial request for due process hearing (“Beaumont I”) on February 24, 2014. In the request, Petitioner alleged that the District denied Student a free, appropriate public education (“FAPE”). A hearing was held on June 24-26, 2014 and a Decision following due process hearing (“Decision”) was issues on August 28, 2014. The Decision found that Petitioner had met her burden in proving that the District failed to provide Student with a FAPE in specific areas and the Petitioner was entitled various relief including, but not limited to specific prospective placement, services, assessments, training, devices/equipment for the remainder of the 2014-2015 school year; program development for the 2015-2016 school year, and reimbursement
He gave verbal confirmation that the resuts were positive withot sighning any papers "verbal confirmation was in violation of police porcedure" (brown vs miller). Police officers arrested brown and he was charged with aggravated rape, addravated burgurlary and aggraveted chrimes agains
In August 2009, David Riley was pulled over for having expired tags on his car and driving with an expired driver’s license. In accordance to the San Diego Police Department Policy, the officer was obligated to impound Riley’s car and conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle. The officer confiscated two handguns which had later been linked to a gang related shooting that had taken place a few weeks prior and Riley’s cell phone. Police officers then rummaged through the data contained on the cell phone which linked Riley to gang affiliated activities and was later used as admissible evidence in court. Riley was convicted on three charges for his involvement in the gang related shooting and the California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction, however he argued that the officers were prohibited to search his cell phone without a warrant and that it was an intrusion of his privacy.
They agreed that high schools shouldn’t need a search warrant because students have a reasonable expectation of how they should act during school hours. The possession of cigarettes was contrary to whether she was being truthful or not, and because T.L.O. was immediately taken to the principal’s office, it made sense to think that there was evidence in her belongings. Because of this, Choplick had a reasonable argument to believe that she had cigarettes in her purse, and so it was constitutional to search through her purse. When Choplick searched the purse, the evidence was in plain sight. This is a large exception to the Fourth Amendment, so he did not require a search warrant for the penetrating of T.L.O.’s belongings.
Next, in the case, Texas v. Brown [103 S. Ct. 1535 (1983)], it states in order for the plain view doctrine to work second, the officer must discover incriminating evidence “inadvertently,” which is to say, he may not “know in advance the location of …evidence and intend to seize it,” relying on the plain view doctrine only as a pretext In this situation, The police officer had approached the men on the fact that he thought that the two men were about to hold a stick-up at Macy’s. The police officer then performs a pat-down on the man, not knowing there would be incriminating evidence in his pocket. Last, in the case, Texas v. Brown [103 S. Ct. 1535 (1983)], it states that in order for the plain view doctrine to be effective, it must be immediately apparent to the police that the items they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. Using his plain touch (pat-down to determine whether the suspect is armed or not) on the outside of the man’s clothing, the officer felt a gun in his pocket. In this scenario, it was immediately apparent to the police
An officer may only be allowed to search a person 's personal belongings if their reasoning is associated with a lawful arrest and if they have a probable cause to search (Matthews). After it being a huge deal in New York, other cities and states began embracing the use of stop-and-frisk as it began growing around the United States. In the 1950s police officials in other cities took up, and expanded, the stop-and-search tactics by using the LAPD to embrace the theory of crime
