Assignment Sub Heading : Fourth Amendment Right On Search And Seizure

Search and seizure has been a big issue in USA. According to the law, the Bill of rights actually provides individual guarantees, in the fourth amendment’s against unwarranted searches and seizures. But there were some exceptions. (DLK) v. United States was one of them. They did broke the violation of fourth amendment’s law, but that doesn’t mean they went too far at the case. It just had some strong evidence like the Carroll case. Therefore, I believe that the government should use the new technology.

At final, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s ruling. The Court said that all claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force whether deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop or any other seizure of a citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, rather than the under a substantive due process. The court also stated that a seizure occurs when a law enforcment officer terminates a free citizen’s movement by a means interntionally applied. An officer may sieze a person in many ways including: traffic stops, investigative detentions, and arrests are all seizures under the 4th amendmet. To seize a person, an officer may yell, “stop”, handcuff, a baton, or a firearm can be used to comply the subject with officer orders.

In the case of Brinegar v. United States, the petitioner claimed that the arresting officer violated his 4th amendment rights and illegally search his car. In the search and siezure the officer found that the petitioner was transporting intoxicating liquor into Oaklahoma, which is a direct violation of law. The courts found that the arresting office had arrested the petitioner on the same violation several months earlier and this was enough reasonable cause to conduct the search ans seizure.

The Merit case of Fernandez v. California is seeking to determine whether the Constitutional rights of Walter Fernandez were violated under the 4th Amendment when law enforcement conducted a search of his residence upon obtaining consent from his girlfriend, who was also a resident, after Fernandez was taken into custody (and had stated his objections to the search while at the scene). In Georgia v. Randolph (2006), in a 5 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court held that when two co-occupants are present and one consents to a search while the other refuses, the search is not constitutional. This paper will provide a statement of the decision, based on current

Facts: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and states that an officer to have both probable cause and a search warrant in order to search a person or their property. There are several exceptions to this requirement. One exception to this is when an officer makes an arrest; the officer can search an arrestee and the area within his immediate control without first obtaining a search warrant. This case brings forth the extent of an officer’s power in searching an arrestee’s vehicle after he has been arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car. On August 25, 1999, the police responded to an anonymous tip of drug activity at a particular residence. When they arrived on scene, Rodney Gant answered the door

am writing this essay on the 4th amendment search and seizure. First of all there was a guy named James Madison, who funny enough became the 4th U.S President, and he also dropped the idea of the 4th amendment. Then after he dropped that idea, the Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, who also became a president later, made it a thing. There was a guy named Potter Stewart who was the judge in the court case of Katz vs. the United States, which means that was the case that prevented security cameras from invading your space. If the police, or whomever

The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important constitutional protections; however, several procedural issues may arise. As seen in this case, the validity of the search warrant was questioned as well as the extent of the protection afforded. A search may be illegal even if a search warrant was issued; probable cause is

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every individual’s personal privacy, and every person’s right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in their homes, businesses and property, regardless of whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork, (1980) (Payton v. New York | Casebriefs, 2017).

In 1986 the development of a sobriety checkpoint came to mind from the Michigan State Police for this would slow traffic down by a few minutes. By having driver go through a checkpoint as that will narrow down the amount of drunk wrecks caused throughout the state. Before a checkpoint was held Sitz filed a complaint regarding to seek relief from potentially being subjected to checkpoints. Does stopping people at a checkpoint violate the 4th Amendment? All checkpoints throughout the state had been put on hold till a verdict was found. It was found the program had violated not only the 4th Amendment but the Michigan’s Constitution 4, 11. Michigan Supreme court had denied the State Police Department for leave to appeal. As this was an illegal

Officers spend years training and devolping key investigate tools, techniques, and continually learning how to be more effective in protecting the public. The Supreme Court affirms that once an officer detains or arrests a person for a weapons violation, tampers with evidence, or drugs; officers are authorized to search areas or vehicles the arrested person was in control of. Arizona v. Johnson established doctrine for the pat and frisk under the following requiremnts: an officer believes he witnessed criminal activity, he or she inititates contact, fearing the individual may have a concealed and dangerous weapon a pat down is conducted. The above case happend in Tucson, AZ while officers were patrolling a neighborhood known for Crip gang member activity. The task force pulled the vehicle over a moving violation, upon making contact with vehicle occupants, a male in the backseat displayed very unusual behavior. The officer also noticed colors associated with Crip gang members, and the officer asked Mr. Johnson to step out and away from the vehicle. He concducted a stop and frisk for his own safety and discovered a handgun. The stop and frisk took an active gang member and handgun off the streets, the may

Policing methods have unequivocally expanded throughout the years with several different amendments from the U.S. Constitution like the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment. Through these amendments, many speculate if expanding law enforcement methods are bypassing the rights of the U.S. Constitution.

Although people in the United States are entitled to privacy and freedom there is a limit to that privacy. State or federal officers are allowed where justified to search your car, house, property in order to seize illegal items such as drugs, illegal weapons, stolen goods just to name a few. When the police do searches it can be for various reasons it depends on the situation. They can have a search warrant to go into a premises and confiscate illegal paraphernalia or when doing a routine traffic stop an officer might become suspicious of activity that is not normal and conduct a search of the vehicle to see why the driver is not acting normal. When conducting searches it is required sometimes to get a warrant which is a document

Search and seizure is a constitutional right which is the fourth amendment which protects anyone of unreasonable search and seizure. When it comes to searching someone’s items such as their home computer when two people use it under two usernames than you have to get one persons permission to search the computer because they both use it and it is one house. If you can’t get permission to search someone’s computer than you have to be able to get a search warrant in order to follow the guidelines of the Law and protecting the rights of others. You also have to have some sort of probable cause in order to search anything of another person as well because if you don’t have a reason to search their things why would you search the items anyways? You would really have no reason to search the items anyways because you don’t have a reason to ask to search and seizure.

There has always been the thought that police can abuse their power especially when it comes to collection of evidence that could incriminate someone for something that was illegally obtained. The exclusionary rule was put in place to counteract evidence that may have ben illegally obtained to be inadmissible in a court of law with few exceptions to the rule.

The Court of Appeals reversed and filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that: "(1) apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement; (2) deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a