On the point of officer safety Riley argued that the data on a cell phone could not be used as a weapon to endanger officer safety or to aid the arrestee 's escape from custody. An officer could physically search the cell phone and it 's case for weapons, such as a razor blade. The State countered that the suspect 's cell phone could be used to call associates to aid him, which would affect officer safety. Allowing the officer to search the cell phone without a warrant might give him/her warning that someone is coming. On the point of protecting evidence from concealment or destruction, Riley argued that once a cell phone has been seized, there is no need for the officer to search the digital contents to protect it.
The court of appeals overturned his conviction because they thought the Stole Valor Act was unnecessary. That wasn’t the end of it. The government appealed the court of appeals decision to bring to the Supreme Court where it is now. I stand with full belief, and the majority opinion of the Supreme Court that Abel Fields’ conviction be overturned. His First Amendment rights had been violated.
•Explain what the amendment says (in plain English) – Search and seizure: the fourth amendment. This amendment prohibits officers and active members of the law to unlawfully search or enter a home or school without a search warrant; and even with a warrant you can only search where evidence might be found. If you are looking for a stolen car, you cannot check the kitchen cabinets the car won’t be there. If an area is improperly searched and something is found that cannot incriminate anyone, and is not allowed to be displayed in the court of law. •Explore what issues made it important for lawmakers in the Early Republic--important enough to add this amendment to the Constitution.
Also, that the policy “…did not address a proven drug problem at the school.” The US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma upheld that the policy was in fact constitutional based on the existence of a “special need, indicated by accounts of drug abuse since 1970.” The verdict would be reversed in the appellate court. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals reaffirming that like in the district court, the policy was in fact, constitutional. As for the defendants, or School Board, they would argue their cases in the oral trail in the Supreme Court. Linda M. Meoli (one of the advocates in the oral trial) expressed one of the schools boards’ argument saying that “Tecumseh 's policy represents a natural, logical, and rational application of this Court 's decision in Vernonia V Acton.” School board also argued that the state of Oklahoma and its schools districts allowed the
T.L.O is relying on court president which is similar to the case of Mapp vs Ohio, that if you don’t have a warrant and you go in and find evidence that that is excluded from trial so they shouldn’t be able to use the contents of T.L.O’s purse. This case is a restraint case because it’s not going to change the rules of the school, it’s going to allow for the search. The court argues that it is correct that students do have an expectation of privacy. No student should expect to have a full scale body search. They also say that there needs to be a balancing test with schools ability to have law and order to run classes to make sure legal activities and drugs aren’t in the school to get in the way of educational objectives.
The Supreme Court decision in Mapp v. Ohio was very controversial. It changed how handle evidence and forced police officers to take special precautions when obtaining evidence. In the case of Mapp, Mapp 's attorneys argued that the obscene material found in Mapp’s house had been unlawfully seized and should not be allowed as evidence. Prior to Mapp’s trial the Supreme Court had ruled in Weeks vs the United States that illegally obtained evidence was not permissible in Federal Court. But did this same principle apply to states?
41. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution. This ruling is controversial because many say that this will let guilty people go free on police carelessness, while others say that the constitution is not a technicality and allows for the equal prosecution of all
In the Clinton v. Jones case, the Court should have not granted the former President Clinton immunity because the general public needs to realize that not even the President can violate the law and get away with it. I agree with the Supreme Court on placing emphasizes on keeping the presidential power in check but respecting the doctrine of separation of powers. The Court has the power to hear cases that involve federal questions because the
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.” To me, this means, in order for the American people to feel that they and their belongings are safe, only an official sworn into office can issue a warrant. This warrant can also be issued with probable cause, or reasonable belief, that some crime has been committed. Upon issuance of said warrant, the sworn official must specify exactly where police are allowed to search and the exact things or people they are allowed to look for and take in their investigation.
Ohio, 367 U.S 436 (1966) and Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) will explain in debt on how the fourth amendment has been adjusted to fit the justce system. People who are not part of law enforcemt should not interven with investigations because it makes the issue more diffuclt, but like every law or rule it can be justified. they are two factors that can be consided when determinding when a private person is acting as an "instrument of the state." one way private people can be justified is by how much the government had influenced the private person. another way this can be justifiable is when the governent is using the person to obtain eveidence ( 'the discovery of the criminal activity or evidence").
One primary legislative cause of the difficulties in prosecuting police is the 1986 the United States supreme courts case, Tennessee v. Garner, which did not allows usages of deadly force by an officer unless "the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others" but the rhetorically vague term "good-faith belief" allowed an objective reason to kill and created a barrier in proving an officer is guilty in court system. While this old legislative piece accounts the difficulties in prosecuting police, the traditional unspoken rule of police officers not to report against colleagues cause corruption in the process of prosecution which is another source of
The conclusion was determined by the unlawfully seized evidence that was received without a warrant. Without a warrant, the information obtained could not be used in prosecutions of criminals in state courts. The five justices that voted in Mapp’s favor stated that the evidence seized was in violation of the fourth Amendment. A justice apart of the case, Justice Tom Clark said, “We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution [is] inadmissible in state court… Were it otherwise… the assurance against unreasonable…searches and seizures would be [meaningless].” Basically, Clark says that if you obtain evidence in a search that is not permitted and it is illegal, it is pointless because it cannot be used against a person in the court room to convict them because it violates the fourth
In the case of Mapp v. Ohio, the court extended the exclusionary rule to the states. Also, the cases illustrated the process of selective incorporation through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Tom Clark held that the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter illegally obtaining evidence and to compel respect for the constitutional guarantee in the only effective manner. He also said that a federal prosecutor may make no use of illegally obtained evidence, but a state prosecutor can, but he must operate under the enforceable prohibition of the same Amendment. Justice Tom Clark also said, if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law (FindLaw, 2017).
Four dissenting judges believed that the full legal context of the Second Amendment should have been reviewed. Heller v. District of Columbia was brought into question for the dissent and how it addressed concealed carry restrictions. According to the dissent the Heller case ensured that the government was not to deprive its citizens of a constitutional right to carry firearms and that concealed carry extended beyond private property. In a separate dissent, Judge Silverman and Judge Bea argued that the near complete refusal of certain counties to administer concealed carry permits would fail to pass any form of scrutiny. The dissent also stated that, while statistically insignificant, concealed carry may not reduce the violent crime rates; however, they do not contribute to more of it.
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).