4th Amendment Case Study

The case starts off by Officer Gung Ho being on foot patrol during the day shift. He receives a call from dispatch about possible drug sales occurring on Main Street. Officer Ho sees three individuals standing on the corner. Officer Ho approaches them and asks what they are doing. Dan, one of the individuals, and another begin to walk away leaving the third person, Junkie Jane.

Our current body of search law is the ongoing process of the communication of legislation, case law, and Constitutional law. “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” (Taylor, Fritsch, & Liederbach2015). Numerous question is still raised on the specific details occurring in the searches and seizures of digital evidence. Overall, the questions focus on whether or not an activity is a "search" and whether a search is "reasonable."

The only information the officers were given was shots fired but, Deputy Murphy’s comment “if I have to go in there myself I’ll charge him with anything I can find” Is over the top and unnecessary. He didn’t know what the situation was I think the officers were right to enter his house to make sure anybody in the house is ok. Since the only information they had was shots fired the officers messed up when he took the mans keys to get into his gun safe that’s when his 4th amendment rights were violated.

On July 4, 1776 the Declaration of Independence was signed and The United States of America declared itself a separate and independent nation. On June 21, 1788 the United States Constitution was made official, replacing the Articles of Confederation. Since its ratification, the Constitution has been amended several times in order to better apply to current times and situations the Founding Fathers could not have predicted. Despite all the changes the Constitution has gone through, its core principles remain.

On October 31, 1968, in Cleveland, Ohio a Cleveland police officer, named Martin McFadden, saw three men acting suspiciously around a jewelry store, which he believed they were casing a job. The officer, McFadden, walked up to three men and asked a few questions; afterwards, he proceeded to stop and frisk them. McFadden found a pistol in John Terry’s pocket, a revolver in Richard Chilton’s pocket and nothing was found on Carl Katz. The officer arrested Terry and Chilton for carrying concealed weapons and Carl Katz was sent free. Terry was convicted and sentenced to three years in jail.

The first case that caused the Supreme Court to allow officers to authorize a search and seizure, was the Terry vs. Ohio case in 1968. The case ruled whether or not it violated the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protection from an unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court then determined that the practice of stopping and frisking a suspect in public does not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the officer has a “reasonable suspicion”. Suspicions such as a person that may seem like they’re planning a crime, have committed a crime, or that may be armed and appear as dangerous. The reason why this policy escalated was due to an incident that happened On October 31, 1963 in Cleveland, Ohio.

Based on an article written in the official website of Cornell University Law School titled “Fourth Amendment: An Overview” states that: "[t]he 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" (LII Staff). The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, shield's individuals from nonsensical pursuits and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, in any case, is not a certification against all ventures and seizures, but rather just those that are regarded outlandish under the law. This is a great example for people who blame the government for allowing parent to implant microchips in their children.

The Exclusionary Rule: Enforcing the Fourth Amendment This section begins by explaining that in 1914, the court reexamined their previous ruling as to whether or not one could submit evidence to a court that had been illegally seized (Ingram, 2009). One specific case that the textbook references in relation to this is the case of Weeks v. the United States. In this particular case, the police had seized evidence that they had taken from the defendant’s residence without a proper search warrant. This evidence was then used against the defendant in court and he was convicted as a result.

The Court held that the roadblocks did not violate the Fourth Amendment which covers the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures also known as protecting our right to privacy.   The Court said, "no one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States ' interest in eradicating it... the weight bearing on the other scale--the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints--is slight". This case has shown that an inconvenience to a motorist 's privacy is acceptable when we are dealing with the larger purpose of saving lives.

This exception should and should not be extended to warrantless searches when an officer has a good-faith belief that probable cause exists depending on the circumstances. A warrantless search is from a different perspective. It is a legally consented search due to exigent circumstances, emergency, and plain view. The warrantless search conducted by good faith should suppress the evidence only when the criteria of invalid consent are not meet. If an officer abuses their authority, harasses, prolong questioning, and intimidate a detaining this ruling should apply.

In the law everyone is protected to have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” which makes it so high authority can’t search the person when or wherever they wish too. Over the years the fourth amendment has been looked at but not overly looked into. The fourth amendment in school has been tried many times over the years. School privacy has many different ways they go about it, but the most common for courts to decides it whether it was a reasonable search and seizure or an unreasonable search and seizure. “To make successful claims for protection under the Fourth Amendment for nonphysical invasion, individual must have genuine beliefs not only that they have expectations of privacy but also that these expectations are reasonable in the