Title: Chimel v. California Date/Court: United States Supreme Court, 1969 Facts: This case deals with Ted Chimel, who they suspected robbed a local coin shop. On September 13, 1965, several officers from Santa Ana came to the home of Chimel with an arrest warrant for his expected involvement in the burglary. The officers arrived at the door and identified themselves to Chimel’s wife and asked if they could come into the home, she agreed and showed them into the house. While in the house the officers waited 10-15 minutes until Chimel came home from work.
1962 marked the beginning of a new era for the South. Baker Vs. Carr, a landmark Supreme Court Case, determined that malappropriated state legislatures were unconstitutional. The Baker Decision resulted in an increase of legislators from urban districts. Rural legislators, who were once in complete control of state capitols, could no longer dominate legislatures in the South.
In Commonwealth v. Newman, 429 PA. 441 (1968), on November 16, 1964, at about 11:30 a.m. four detectives went to appellant 's home with a body warrant for appellant and a search warrant for the premises. The complaint for the search warrant recited that the affiant, Detective John McCrory, deposed that there was probable cause to believe that certain books, papers, and other items used for the purpose of a lottery were in the possession of Henderson Newman at or near 721 West Mary Street. They forcefully entered the appellant 's home without announcement or purpose. The court held that, the forcible entry without announcement of purpose violates the Fourth Amendment. The fruits of an illegal search are inadmissible under Mapp v. Ohio,
Gregg v. Georgia Ware, 1 Gregg v. Georgia: Death Penalty Cheyenne Ware Liberty High School 3AB ? Gregg v. Georgia, decided July 2, 1976, was a case that has influenced a lot of cases after it. This is due to the fact it defined it the constitutionality of the death penalty and how extreme of an offence one must commit in order to receive the death penalty, as well as overturning the decision of Furman v. Georgia (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015 A) (Cornell University, 2015). In Furman v. Georgia, Furman was in the process of robbing is home when a resident of the home noticed him.
State of Georgia V. Marcus Dwayne Dixon (2003) Marcus Dixon was a highly recruited high school football player. His life suddenly took a tragic turn when he was falsely convicted of raping a 15 year old girl. The elements around his false conviction could have been avoided with some reform to the criminal justice courts system. Dixon initially had many charges against him but were narrowed down to statutory rape and aggravated child molestation. There was much racial disparity surrounding the jury on Dixon’s case, in that the county that Dixon committed his “crime” was a predominantly white population.
Since the police officer had a reasonable suspicion that the Respondent was holding drugs, the officer’s search and seizure of the cocaine was reasonable since the search remained within the bounds set forth by Terry v. Ohio. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a police officer’s sense of touch does not incur an invasion of Petitioner’s privacy during a stop and
Almost a decade ago, Antoine Jones was tried, convicted, and given a life sentence for operating a drug trade. Of course, his possession of illegal drugs and involvement in the selling of illegal drugs is enough for his conviction, but Jones argues that the police secured evidence unconstitutionally. When the police first started observing Jones on suspicions of his participation in the drug trade, they fastened a hidden GPS device on his car, in order to track Jones to a so-called “stash house,” although they did not procure a warrant to use the device. The police were able to successfully apprehend Jones based on evidence procured from the GPS. Citing the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, Jones took his case to the Supreme Court.
oshua Haas October 6, 2014 Intro to Criminal Justice Miller Vs. Alabama On June 25, 2012 the Supreme Court had rule 5 to 4 that Miller was guilty to committing murder and was sentence to life in prison without the possibility of parole. On that day in June the court had struck down all of the statues that was requires for a child under the age of 18 to be sentenced life in prison.
v. Moscatiello where police lawfully entered a warehouse and in the process discovered drugs, they left the compound as they found it, got a warrant and returned and arrested the suspect for drug possession (Samaha page 393). The court held that the unlawfully entry didn’t help find the drugs (Samaha page 393). Even though the police were in good standing it still shows the law and constitution were fundamentally violated when the police violated Moscatiello fourth amendment right to unlawful search and seizure (Samaha page 393). This case shows that the police can enter a person’s home look around find something leave and come back legally and take what they found while they were searching illegally as long as they can show they would have found it anyway (Samaha page 393). Again if those tasked with keeping the law don’t follow it what is the incentive for the average Joe to follow
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.
In Arizona vs Gant, the case began when Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license (Justia US Supreme Court, n.d.). The arresting officers handcuffed Gant and then placed him into a police car before searching the vehicle Gant had been operating (Justia US Supreme Court, n.d.). Within the vehicle, the cops found cocaine in a jacket pocket. Gant was charged with possession of narcotics (Justia US Supreme Court, n.d.). At trial, Rodney Gant argued that searching his car was a violation of his Fourth Amendment right (Justia US Supreme Court, n.d.).
The U.S. Supreme Court held that garbage placed at the curbside is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. The warrantless search of Greenwood’s garbage bags would violate the Fourth Amendment only if Greenwood showed a subjective expectation of privacy of the garbage and society accepts it as objectively reasonable. The U.S Supreme Court argued that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy for trash on public streets where animals, children, scavengers, and the public have access to it. Criminal activity that can be seen by any member of the public cannot be reasonably expected to be ignored by the police.
In December 2006, local law enforcement received an anonymous phone call on a drug tip line regarding suspicious activity at a home in Salt Lake City. As a result, police officer David Fackrell surveilled the residence for approximately one week, witnessing several noticeably short visits conducive to drug activity. Officer Fackrell observed respondent Edward Strieff exit the home, followed him to a local convenience store, and stopped the man without articulable reasonable suspicion, a requirement of the Fourth Amendment. During this unlawful investigatory stop, Officer Fackrell requested that Strieff provide identification. Upon Strieff’s compliance, Officer Fackrell ran a warrants check and discovered that Strieff had an outstanding warrant
The constitutional issue I am analyzing is the violation of the fourth amendment. There have been many cases of people’s fourth amendment rights being violated, some times it is justified and other times it was violated unreasonably. It is very important that our fourth amendment rights are protected and US citizens private lives aren't being infringed upon and unreasonably searched. In the past recent years there have been Supreme court cases that involve the violation of the fourth amendment.
"The State of California versus Scott Lee Peterson (Case number 1056770, 2005)", was an interesting case. This case was interesting because Laci was a very beautiful and seemingly young, friendly, and happily pregnant woman with lots of friends. Her husband, although attractive, had a kind of macho tough guy womanizer type of persona about himself. It is hard to believe or fathom someone being so cruel as to kill their pregnant wife, regardless of their marital problems. Laci came up missing on December 24, of 2002, the day before Christmas.
