California Vs. Greenwood Case Study

The U.S. Supreme Court held that garbage placed at the curbside is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. The warrantless search of Greenwood’s garbage bags would violate the Fourth Amendment only if Greenwood showed a subjective expectation of privacy of the garbage and society accepts it as objectively reasonable. The U.S Supreme Court argued that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy for trash on public streets where animals, children, scavengers, and the public have access to it. Criminal activity that can be seen by any member of the public cannot be reasonably expected to be ignored by the police.

he fourth amendment was heavily rooted in the legal doctrine. The fourth amendment was created to limit the government 's power.

The efforts Edina Broward made to research about her stolen painting will probably considered as diligent efforts which prevent statute of limitation from starting to run. Ms.Broward tried to find her stolen painting by many means. First of all, The police was notified by her as well as a private investigator was hired to help to find the stolen painting. Similar to Everett v. Rogers, where the owner of stolen painting informed the police and was going to hire private investigator.

On May 23, 1957, police officers showed up to a house in Cleveland and demanded to be let inside. They believed a man who was recently involved in a bombing was hiding inside. Dollree Mapp, the woman who lived in the home refused to let them in. Ms. Mapp explained to the officers that she needed to see a search warrant before letting them enter the home. They were unable to provide one, so they left.

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.

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.

The Brown vs Board of Education, the landmark Supreme Court decision was a historic win as it finally put the 14th amendment into practice. In terms of the impact it has had on social welfare. The case victory allowed for future programs, resources, services to be distributed among the African American students. Such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 are services that include students of color. As we move forward more policy’s will be created keeping in mind on how to serve poor communities and how to build schools that can serve the community to reach out to young students in helping them strive regardless their race and economic status.

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.

There are many amendments that our founding fathers created that help many people in the united states. They created theses amendment to protect the people and also because they seen theses thing happened to many people. The fourth amendment is one of the amendment that helped many people to protect their rights. Also it helps the government from abusing its power.

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.

Students, as United States citizens, expect protection of Constitutional rights. However, most do not realize that this coverage does not extend to condone any act the individual sees fit. There are certain limits, especially on those attending public schools. A student has certain rights including, but not limited to, the right to free speech and expression, the expectation of privacy, and freedom to practice religious freedom in assembly. These limits exist to ensure that not any one student can compromise another's’ pursuit of education.

From believing that the freedom of speech and press was protection against previous regulations to believing that it to be protection against unnecessary harm to the general public, Holmes changes positions between Patterson v. Colorado and Schenck v. United States. In Patterson v. Colorado, Patterson was fined for publishing a cartoon about an active case of the Supreme Court of Colorado. Believing that his rights protected by the 14th Amendment were infringed, Patterson turned to the Supreme Court to repeal his punishment. Holmes argued that the cartoon was an obstruction of justice.