The 's New Ordinance For Each Basis Will She Win?

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

Throughout the past centuries, the United States has encountered many court cases dealing with illegally searching citizens homes and using the evidence found against them. Cases dealing with Search and Seizure have dated back to Mapp v. Ohio, in which Dollree Mapp’s apartment was illegally searched and child pornography was found. This case raised the question, may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This issue is a major problem because it could lead to many citizens rioting and even more cases dealing with this controversial topic. In spite of many attempts to eliminate illegal search and seizures, it has still been a reoccurring problem. Regarding the issue of search and seizure, the Supreme Court has developed a much

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

Legal Reasoning: The ultimatum of the Fourth Amendment is whether the search was reasonable. The Supreme Court upheld that a warrant is generally required to search a home. Warrantless searches are not reasonable when two co-tenants are present and one of the tenants objects. However, the court held that a same search is reasonable when the opposing tenant is not present. Since the opposing tenant; Fernandez, was arrested and not present, the court affirmed that the search was reasonable

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 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”. It consists of two clauses, the reasonableness clause which focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure and the warrant clause which limits the scope of a search. There are many views on how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, especially by today’s standards. The world has evolved significantly since the implementation of the Bill of Rights. As it evolved, time brought about numerous cases on the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. When plaintiffs are not satisfied with the decision of lower courts, they can

• The Court has ruled that the areas carved out which include exceptions to the basic tenets of the Fourth Amendment, commonly known as warrantless searches, may be conducted if circumstances are such that the interests of society outweigh the invasiveness of the action.

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

On the date of February 4th, 1965, believing that the Petitioner had been using public pay phones to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began their surveillance into the life of the Petitioner, Charles Katz. Fifteen days later on February 19th, 1965 FBI agents working the case against the Petitioner had gained access to a phone booth within a set of phone booths that the petitioner frequented on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, and summarily recorded the petitioner’s side of conversations he was having on the phone within a booth nearby. This surveillance lasted until the 25th (excluding February 22, as no evidence was obtained due to technical difficulties) the date of the petitioner’s arrest, which took place immediately after he exited the same set of phone booths (Brief for Respondent 3). In this case there are two major constitutional questions which need to be addressed: (1) whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the Petitioner is gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether the search warrant used by the FBI officers in this case violated the Fourth Amendment to the constitution in that the warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; (b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search warrant. While the Petitioner would like the answer to be yes in both cases,

The United States Constitution affords all people certain rights. The Fifth Amendment states that we have the right against self incrimination. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search or seizure. People have the right to confront witnesses and accusers. Nothing can change these rights unless the U.S. constitutions were to be rewritten and that is not likely to happen. In this paper we will be examining the Fourth Amendment, learning the requirements for obtaining a search warrant, defining probable cause, describing when search and seizure does not require a warrant. We will also explain the rationale for allowing warrantless searches, examine the persuasiveness of these reasons, and determine if probable cause is always

In the Supreme Court case “Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 1995,” the question before the court was whether or not “...random drug testing of high school athletes violates the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment.”(“Vernonia School District.” [Oyez]). The case concerned the Fourth Amendment, which protects a person’s right to privacy and protects them from unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, a seventh-grade student, James Acton, claimed that the situation regarding a mandatory drug test in his school was an unreasonable search. Without doing the test, he was not allowed to join an athletic team. Although the court case changed its name order, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court trial was the Vernonia

Prior to the year 1967, the Fourth Amendment protected “areas” and relied on physical intrusion to define something as a search (Hall, 2015). The case of Katz v. United States came out of California. Katz was using a public, phone booth to place bets in Miami, Florida and Boston, Massachusetts. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

At Miss Mapp’s trial no search warrant was displayed by the prosecution nor was an explanation given (4). The Supreme Court dissented that appellant’s arrest was valid because of the circumstances which existed at the time of apprehension and therefore no warrant was requisite (3). The Supreme Court held that a government official may arrest a person without a warrant as long as probable cause is present and the person is guilty of a felony (3). In addition, the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause in all state prosecutions. Hence, the Fourth Amendment’s right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the states through the Due Process

Question 5: Based on the ruling of the Supreme Court in City of Chicago v. Morales, what protections of the individual do you think must be included in an ordinance proscribing loitering?

THE COURT SHOULD FIND THAT THE SEARCHING OFFICERS WERE UNREASONABLE IN THEIR BELIEF THAT HIS COTENANT HAD APPARENT AUTHORITY TO CONSENT TO THE SEARCH BECAUSE HER ANSWERS TO THEIR QUESTIONS CREATED AMBIGUITY AND THEY DID NOT RESOLVE THAT AMBIGUITY.

When conducting possible searches and seizers, the Fourth Amendment is made to protect unreasonable conduct. Due to