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.
Facts: Law enforcement gathered enough evidence to establish probable cause that Payton murdered a gas station employee. Without an arrest warrant, agents entered the suspect’s home with force to make an arrest. Payton was not home at the time of the entry but in plain view officers found a shell casing that was used for evidence. Issue: Is it unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure Clause for law enforcement to enter a home without an arrest warrant or search warrant
Parties: Ted Chimel (Plaintiff) v. The State of California (Defendant) Facts: The Police Officers arrived at the Plaintiff’s house with an arrest warrant for the alleged crime he had committed. The Plaintiff was not at home and his spouse let them in until Chimel return. Upon the Plaintiff entering the house, the police arrested him and request permission to search the house. The Plaintiff denied the request to search the house, but the police officers proceeded to search the house.
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.
Three related precedents govern the extent to which officers may search property found on or near an arrestee. Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, requires that a search incident to arrest be limited to the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, where it is justified by the interests in officer safety and in preventing evidence
Chapter 4 is titled "Criminal Investigatory Search Warrants. " Search warrant laws are found in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The elements of a search warrant include: (1) an order in writing, (2) issued by a proper judicial authority, (3) in the name of the people, (4) directed to a law enforcement officers, (5) commanding the officer to search for certain personal property, and (6) commanding the officer to bring that property before the judicial authority named in the warrant. Neutral judicial officers such as clerks of court, magistrates, complaint justices, judges, and justices of the peace are allowed to issue search warrants in their permitted jurisdictions. They must have probable cause before they can authorize a search warrant, which is usually done through an affidavit submitted by the law
These actions did not go by what was established by an earlier, similar case, and by performing the scan with no warrant, the government did not allow DLK to conduct private activities in his own home. Although some argue that the government’s actions were acceptable because they only scanned what was visible to the public, they still used a device not readily available to the public to see inside DLK’s home. The government’s actions were unacceptable, and a warrant should have been obtained prior to performing the search in order to make it
(The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated-Staros). Students have many rights; but, it is the right of the school to search students when there is reasonable suspicion of a threat. An example of this is the court case TLO v New Jersey. " T.L.O. was a high school student. School officials searched her purse suspecting she had cigarettes.
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
By law the constitution states that the fourth amendment is 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
School officers do not require a warrant or probable cause to search students because the school officers are considered the guardian. Notwithstanding police officers need probable cause to search students. Schools may test any student in an extra curricular after school activity for drug usage. However, the school may not single out a student for testing. Found in the court case of The Board of Education V Earls 2002.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated… We all know the fourth amendment. It's the amendment that guarantees our safety within our homes and our personal belongings. Yet, how much do you know about the fourth amendment? The fourth amendment is full of history, controversy, and discussion, even in modern day.
The 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 place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (Administrative Office, n.d.) The key to this is unreasonable searches and seizures. I am using a government-owned device and if my employer believes I have something to hide that could be hurtful or harmful, he should be allowed to search my device without waiting for a warrant. The only time it would be infringing on my rights protected by the Fourth Amendment is if he is being unreasonable and only checking whenever he felt like being nosey.
The fourth has protected many people and their belongings from being searched. According to kids.law.com/fourth-amendment it states “...protects people from being searched or having their things taken away from them without any good reason.” In amendment four it said, “...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
In addition, the law enforcement only needs to be “supported by a probable cause” or an “arrest warrant,” to search a United States citizen. Although, the police officer could arrest a suspect to stop them from running away or to preserve evidence. Besides the Fourth Amendment is still beneficial for all United States
