Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Essays

criminal investigation. In the United States, the use of GPS tracking on a suspect generally requires a search warrant due to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Supreme Court has ruled that using a GPS tracker constitutes a "search" and therefore requires a warrant. A warrant needs to be present to use GPS tracking. Individuals have their rights stated in the U.S. Constitution and should be respected and

basement under the Ohio Revised Code section then in effect. 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

The Fourth Amendment explicitly states and gives “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” (Smentkowski, 2017). This amendment was designed to protect all citizens, whether

Our founding fathers created the Bill Of Rights which are the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. One of the most important amendments is the Fourth Amendment. It 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

Riley v. California in 2014 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court argued whether the police has the right to search and seize digital content without a warrant, from individuals who have been arrested. So, the main question of the case was whether the evidence admitted at trial from Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment right. The court ruled, by a unanimous vote that a warrantless cell phone search during an arrest is unconstitutional. On August 22, 2009, the police stopped

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.” In other words, it is against the law for police to search any person without probable cause and an issued warrant. (Cartoon Surveillance) This protects the privacy of the innocent people that may not be considered guilty. However, giving the people a right to a warrant

This is one of many exceptions to the 4th Amendment. Additional exceptions exist and have been accepted in exclusive circumstances. These exceptions are search incident to an arrest, plain view, stop and frisk (plain feel), hot pursuit/ exigent circumstance, and the automobile exception. The plain

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

he wanted the evidence that was found on him thrown out. Terry had felt that the evidence that was found on him violated his Fourth Amendment; which is the people’s right against search and seizures. In an eight to one decision, the court had decided that McFadden, the police officer, had enough probable cause to search him and that it did not violate the Fourth Amendment. After Terry was convicted with three years in jail, he filed with the Supreme Court of appeals. The court had found that the

Automobile searches and many other types of searches and seizures are protected by the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment to the constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Searches can only be justifiable if provided a warrant, probable cause, supported by oath of or affirmations. Automobile searches are an important aspect when it comes to police work. Without the ability to conduct warrantless searches on vehicles, the ability to get away with a crime while in a motor vehicle

In this paper, I argue against Government Surveillance. Although a society full of cameras could help solve some crimes, it is also true that the Constitution, through the fourth amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Despite the fact that this is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law should be monitored. In addition, increasing political surveillance with the excuse of protection against

almost as long as seven football fields or 2,400 feet and 85 feet below the ground. This tunnel is equipped with a ventilation system, water systems, lights, along with particle concrete floors. The tunnel is used to smuggle marijuana across the United States southern border from Tijuana, Mexico to San Diego in California, yet it is completely undetected from border security. When found in 2006, two tons of marijuana was discovered, along with the tunnel’s exit under an abandoned factory. It is unknown

Every year there are thousands of cases of bullying that are reported. A lot of the time nothing is done. Sometimes the student being bullied commits suicide or shoots up their school. After horrific tales like that happen, a few peers will speak up about how the person was bullied and nothing was done. It happens too often. If schools were responsible, it would probably happen less frequently. Due to the previously mentioned cases, I feel that schools should be held responsible when bullying is

On June 16, 2015, I was assisting Officer M. Rich on a suspicious activity call at Argonne Drive @ Versailles Street. Communication advised a light blue Buick with NC registration just dropped off two black male’s at the above location. Upon arrival in the area I observed a light blue Buick vehicle with a black male behind the wheel. The vehicle was facing west on Argonne Drive near Versailles Street. I continued on west on Argonne Drive passing the Buick, in an attempt to locate the two black

On Wednesday 11/18/2015 at approximately 1535 hours, Officer Lauritzen and I responded to the Wal-Mart at 1333 N Mountain Avenue reference a theft with the suspect in-custody. Upon arrival I spoke with Ernest Rogers, the Asset Protection Associate. Rogers said the suspect, Christopher Lazos, took several electronic items, concealed them, and then exited the store without paying. Rogers wrote a statement and the following is a summary of his statement. Rogers said on Wednesday 11/18/2015, he was

1. Evaluate the issues which arise when first responders (police or paramedics) are called to a crime scene, which (prior to their arrival) is discovered to be a source of digital crime. What complexities are likely to arise that would compromise the investigation and prosecution of alleged perpetrators? Unit 3. Many criminal investigations will include computers at some point in a case. Murder and rape suspects, through a search warrant, may have their email and Internet activities analyzed

Danielle Van Dam was taken from her home by the family’s neighbor Westerfield. Danielle’s father was home with her, along with a few siblings as well. During that time, Danielle’s mother was out with friends and then returned in the middle of the night with friends, still neither of the parents checking on the children because they assumed that the kids were okay. Unfortunately, during sometime in that night, Westerfield entered the home, kidnapped Danielle Van Dam, and killed her, leaving her

On Saturday 12/17/16 at 0101 hours I heard Officer J. Schultz request additional units via the radio and that he was with an uncooperative male. I observed the CAD showed Officer Schultz at the Muckleshoot Casino on an auto recovery. It was later discovered Officer Schultz was in the west parking lot of the Bingo Hall. When I arrived I observed Officer Schultz had two males detained at the front of his patrol vehicle and he was holding a handgun in his right hand. One male was sitting on the push

through his locker, and there she found Cyrus’ phone. She eventually found the photos and proof that he sent them to other boys. The principal suspended Cyrus for two weeks. The Fourth Amendment rights of the plaintiff were not violated by this search. The search of Cyrus’ cell phone was not violating his Fourth Amendment

On 10/03/2015, at approximately 0227 hours, your Affiant and Captain O'neill were handling an incident in front of the Oyster Bar on Main Street. Our patrol vehicle was parked across the street from the Oyster Bar (southbound lane). While standing on the shoulder of the southbound lane to cross the street I observed a black Dodge Ram 1500 travelling northbound. As the vehicle drove closer to my location he began to drift left out of his lane for travel and continued through the opposite lane