Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the
Now although the office filled the warrant out he didn’t specify which unit in a multi-family housing unit was supposed to be search. Unfortunately, the police raided the wrong house or residence, which in returned caused them to kick down the door as well as terrorize an innocent family. Therefore, an innocent person could have gotten killed which has happened before in New York. However, the requirement that the location of a search warrant be specific isn’t “a technicality” but a core principle of the Fourth Amendment (washingtonpost.com. n.d.). Therefore, the reason that the Fourth Amendment was created goes back to the general warrants that the British crown issued to English
Given the totality of circumstances, an officer has satisfied the probable cause standard to arrest an individual believing that a felony is or has occurred in the officer’s presents. This type of warrantless arrest does not violate an individual’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Decision: Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the Court’s opinion on this case. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that citizens “are to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” This right is pushed down to the state level by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ensures that warrantless arrests can be conducted by police officers when the standard of probable cause has been met.
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.
The majority opinion discussed the Fourth Amendment and explains now it provides the the ability to arrest individuals without a warrant when the officers have probable cause that a suspect has committed a criminal offense. During this traffic stop, the arresting officer determined a crime had occurred. It was up to the court to determine if the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle. Chief Justice Rehnquist determined that the arresting officers proved a crime occurred and there was probable cause to determine Pringle should be arrested. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, when three people are in the car where drugs are located and the owner of the drugs is not clear with no one admitting possession, it is reasonable for the officers to believe that either one or all of the occupants of the vehicle committed the offense.
In the case of Timothy Ivory Carpenter V. UNITED STATES Did the government overstep its bounds in Detroit without getting a probable cause warrant, and did the government violated the 4th amendment of Timothy Ivory Carpenter? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,but upon probable cause, the police have the right to searched, and the persons or things to be seized. That is the 4th amendment. So what are the facts of the case then? (“United States v. Carpenter.”
In this case Kyllo v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled against the vitric of the lower courts on a 5 to 4 vote. The questions that need to be answered in this case, in my opinion serve a bigger purpose then the case at hand. The case itself is about a man named Danny Kyllo who was growing marijuana plants inside his home illegally. An officer of the U.S Interior Department got a tip that this man was illegally growing plants inside his home and went to investigate this. Obviously a tip from an unknown is not enough information to get a warrant to search the man’s property.
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.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Mapp case various other cases such as U.S v. Leon the “good faith” exception in 1984 and Nix v. Williams the inevitable discovery rule of 1984 have helped to modify the exclusionary rule handed down by the U.S Supreme Court stating that the original ruling interfered too much with the work of police officers (Pearson
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.
To which amendment to the constitution does the case relate? Mapp appealed her case to the Supreme Court stating that the 4th Amendment should be incorporated. The 4th Amendment prohibits against unreasonable searches and seizures, and during Mapp’s arrest, the police came to the founding of the evidence presented in the trial without a warranty. Fourth Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
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).
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.
This exception applies where it would be “impracticable” to apply for a warrant or to mandate probable cause (Griffin v. Wisconson). The case of MacWade v. Kelly outlines the test for whether the special needs doctrine should apply in a specific case. The first premise is that the search must be for a purpose beyond the state’s general interest in law enforcement. The second premise is that a warrantless search must be deemed “reasonable”. In determining reasonableness, the court must consider “the weight and immediacy of the government interest, the nature of the privacy interest allegedly compromised by the search, the character of the intrusion imposed by the search, and the efficacy of the search in advancing the government interest”.
The First Amendment is the most important, because of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Many people think that the fourth amendment is the most important. They think this, because it is important for a person to be able to tell policemen “No” if they ask you if they could search your car or your house. I believe that the fourth amendment is really important, but you wouldn’t be able to tell the policemen “No” if you didn’t have freedom of speech. George Washington said,”If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be, like sheep to the slaughter” (“Famous Quotes Freedom of Speech”).Without freedom of speech and religion we are nothing.
