More handpicked essays just for you.
Questions on the fourth amendment
Legal considerations with the 4th amendment
Questions on the fourth amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The case involves the question of whether or not the police were within their rights to search the trash that was left at the curbside without a warrant. The amendment
Gates counsel argued that law enforcement lack of sufficient probable cause for a warrant was a fourth amendment violation. The decision of the Trail Courts, was upheld by The Appellate Court. The court used the example of Spinelli v. United States,
Another officer arrived on the scene and they search the student’s room and found additional drugs. The student (roommate of the original student) was charged with possession of a controlled substance. Issues The issue to be determined in this case is “Did the officer 's seizure of the drugs violate Chrisman 's "reasonable expectation of privacy" guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment?” Holdings
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
DeMichel provides that the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizure while requiring law enforcement personnel to provide notice of their identity and announce their purpose when entering upon private premises. The court found it unreasonable for the officers to forcible enter the premises with first giving the occupant an opportunity to voluntarily surrender the premises. Our client’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the plain clothed officers entered the premises without announcing their purpose and without providing Mr. Clavel the appropriate time to voluntarily open his door and surrender the premises for search. The unlawful search and seizure led to Mr. Clavel’s charges of intent to distribute
The exclusionary rule can make evidence inadmissible in the court of law if that evidence was illegally obtained by a police officer. This protects an individual from unlawful searches and serves as an effective deterrent for police misconduct. One could argue that a mistake on the officer’s behalf should not result in the release of a criminal. This assertion would be reasonable if these fourth amendment violations committed by police officers were honest mistakes. Unfortunately, some illegal evidence is found because of deliberate misconduct by the police.
Even if it was to be allowed in the court of law the defendant Mr. Blake was intoxicated and not thinking clearly. The Officers also allegedly observed Mr. Blake hand a baggie of white powder to someone standing near the couch. This was allegedly to be observed during the violation of the Fourth Amendment right along with the pat-down search of his body without Mr. Blake’s consent. A search or seizure is generally unreasonable and illegal without a warrant (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment).This search which lead to the arrest of Mr. Blake did not have probable cause due to all evidence leading up to the search and under the exclusionary rule, all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Federal Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court. (Mapp v.
“Riley v. California”) Bensur and Brokamp say in their article that in court, Riley claimed that his Fourth Amendment right was violated because the officers did not have probable cause also called reasonable suspicion to examine his phone. The case went to the Supreme Court and the judges agreed that the police had acted
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
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).
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.).
This rule consists of “illegally obtained evidence only applied when the societal benefits of applying the rule exceed the societal costs”. In the Utah v. Strieff Case, a valid arrest warrant was discovered in such an unconstitutional detention. If there is an invasion of privacy, then the necessity of a warrant is acquired. In December 2006, the police received an anonymous message on a drug tip line about drug activity at a particular Salt Lake City residence. While detained, Strieff provided his identification upon the officer's request.
Actually, the reasonableness of a specific search or seizure is based on the premise of balancing competing interests between the various stakeholders in the criminal justice system. In this case, the government’s focus in achieving effective law enforcement goals requires ensuring a balance between its law enforcement initiatives and individual’s interest in personal security and privacy. The contemporary criminal justice system is constantly faced with the need to ensure that law enforcement interests and individual’s interests are promoted across all activities and operations. In essence, the significance of the Fourth Amendment is ensuring individual rights are not violated in pursuit of law enforcement objectives and
